3D-Pangel

I personally love using Redshift. I would love to hear about people's experiences using it with AMD Ryzen processors because for some reason Redshift's hardware recommendations still point to Intel processors. Maybe they are just being Intel focused because Redshift is not (yet) using AMD GPU's so they are staying away from EVERY AMD product until their software is fully ported over. Not sure. But the big thing you want is as many PCIe lanes as possible from your CPU to your GPU and as fast a clock speed on that CPU as you can afford (threads mean nothing). The 3990X has 64 PCIe lanes....whereas the fastest Intel Xeon Platinum series CPU only has 48. So my heart is on the Threadrippers if I was to build a machine for Redshift. Hopefully there are no hidden issues with AMD processors. Dave

"Cafe 4D" anyone?

Hmmm....seven years of cash-back points on credit cards pay for my next PC's. I buy the most powerful PC's I can afford and use them until the finally out --- which is about 7 years. Dave

But doesn't that then mean that all your passwords are stored externally on some cloud service? So far, I have lost all confidence that any external site can't be hacked. I can't tell you how many times my credit cards get automatically replaced because my credit card company finds out that a big name merchant was hacked. As for me, I keep all the important passwords in a double encrypted file stored on an external USB drive (two actually --- one is kept in a fireproof safe). You can't hack what's not connected. Overkill? Do I have serious trust issues? Absolutely and that is the way I like it. Dave

Great idea though to open it to other programs. Will there be separate sections for each software program (similar to CG Networks). Maybe open a modo section and invite 3D Kiwi back to be the moderator. That would be awesome!! I would love to get back some of the people who have moved on to Blender ---- simply because we miss them. Are we locked on "Core 4D"? How about "Core 4D Cafe"? (or is that too long?). That way, while the domain name is officially "Core 4D Cafe" us old timers could shorten it to "C-4D Cafe".....if only to annoy those people who created the situation that was "beyond your control" which forced you to change it. Probably domain jumpers. I personally am up for annoying anyone who picks on one the friendliest sites on the web.....bunch of bullies. Dave BTW: First time I actually had to use my user id and login to enter the site in a LOOONG time. Fortunately, I remembered it.

Honestly, I think MAXON sales would increase if they offered an indie perpetual license for 50% of the current price ($1750 base and $500 upgrade cost) but with rendering limited to 2560 x 1440 and animations limited to 300 frames. That keeps it purely in the hobbyist category -- big enough to appreciate your work on mid-range monitors with animations long enough to show off what you just learned. Of course, they could do nothing and let the hobbyist market completely go to Blender. I wonder how painful it will be for them to watch Blender catch up and over-take C4D in ALL areas (interface, features, speed, quality, stability). I would imagine that will be a painful thing to endure after all the work they have put into it. But there is time for MAXON to consider an Indie version because given Blender's pace of development they have at least until...hmmm....say.......some time in June before they need to start worrying. Dave

The problem with naming one person is that you can't name them all - and I would gladly give up my undeserved spot on that list because there are definitely more deserving and more talented members out there. The vast majority of Cafe members make this site a unique blend of friendship, collaboration, trust, kindness, and inspiration. I hate to say it, but this is RARE find in today's world where people say and post the most vile things under the misguided thinking that any attention is better than no attention. So my sincere thank to Igor, Hrvoje and the Community Staff (Cerbera, Rectro, Bezo, and DasFrodo) for making the Cafe not only a great community to be a part of but a damn nice place to visit...and also for all the unseen work they have done to keep it that way through the years. Dave

Be sure to revisit this thread from time to time to give us an update on your journey. We are all rooting for you to succeed! Dave

GENIUS! I've got to tuck that one away for future reference.

Congratulations Igor and thank you Hrvoje. Hrvoje, I would imagine that working as MAXON's in-house nodes guru and developer is becoming a bigger part of your work life right now and so I can understand the change in Cafe ownership. Right now, your scene node courses are the only ones out there that provide any in-depth training on scene nodes. Everyone else is doing one or two videos to explain some unique technique they discovered but yours is the only one that provides a deep foundation for scene node learning. Having purchased the course, it is just that: foundational learning! So (IMHO), you are leading the way for everyone else in developing, training and possibly evangelizing this next big step in C4D's development....no pressure.....and I can therefore understand and appreciate the time commitment which is required. But the Cafe is still in great hands. Just promise us that you won't be a stranger! Dave

Wolfgang (honestly, I hope you don't mind but typing "Contra....." is too much work) 🙂 Thank you so much for providing the detail explanation. I hope it didn't force you to go back and model the piece again as I think that train model already gives you enough to do! I do appreciate it though. So I am a little confused about whether complex poles should be avoided in ALL cases. I guess for hard surface modeling, particularly when they fall on a flat plane, it is okay but just wondering why you would not have connected the polygons as crudely shown below: Not only would this eliminate a complex pole, but quite a few triangles in the process. Does it matter in hard surface modeling or in cases where texturing can easily be accomplished with a simple triplanar projection? Youtube videos such as this one tend to support NOT following a rigid discipline of quads. Personally, I push myself to only model in quads but there are some situations where the work required to remove some quads far outweighs the benefits. As we have the top 3 quad modelers on the Cafe following this thread (you, Cerbera and Vector), I would love to get your insights into when it is okay to let a triangle slip into the work every now and then. Dave

May I ask why you need that shape. If you need it explain something in the real world then you need to Google "damped harmonic oscillator equation". Now what you will find are pages and pages of text talking about the physics and energy dissipation of a harmonic oscillation being enacted upon by an outside force such that over time its energy is completely dissipated. There is very little on just the math of the shape without going into the physics behind it but this page is probably the most gentle in providing both videos and text on the subject that I could find. Personally, I would go with Cerbera's formula unless you need it actually model some real world phenomena. Dave

These two pieces alone provide both modeling inspiration and a host of great lessons on quad management: I would love to see more especially the object on the left. Just exactly how did you blend in the two external cylinders. Obviously only half the object was modeled as it was symmetric, but did you bring in an external cylinder, connect it, fillet it and then dissolve edges to get quads or did you create the cylinder out of the existing topology? There are some techniques in there that are worth hearing more about. Again, I just love your work. And once again, I get a headache thinking about aligning all those elements into position. Dave

For those that will still need their "how did they do that" itch scratched by reading behind the scenes articles, I would recommend "befores & afters". In addition to an on-line presence they also just came out with a print version that will be released 4 times a year. They have just started with Issue 1. The start of another 40 year relationship? Not sure as Cinefex set a pretty high bar but I may get Issue 1 just to check them out. I will give the founder of "befores and afters" (Ian Failes) props for a rather touching tribute to Cinefex found here. It appears he had the exact same moment of discovery that I had when first saw the magazine. Dave

After 40 years and 172 issues, Cinefex: the premiere journal of visual effects coverage, is closing its doors forever. The pandemic not only robbed the magazine of content (as movies were not being released), but it also robbed the magazine of sales channels as stores closed and advertisers as they too were struggling. This is heartbreaking given that I grew up with Cinefex. I still remember my first contact with the magazine in a Barnes and Noble bookstore. Sitting on the magazine rack was a beautiful finished shot of a Taun-Taun from The Empire Strikes Back standing on top of a snow covered hill. That's all there was on the cover along with the word "Cinefex". There was no catchy slogan to tell you what the magazine was about. Nothing to tell you what articles were inside. Just an amazing visual effects shot and the word "Cinefex". But honestly, you did not need anything else to tell you what it was about. As huge fan of Ray Harryhausen movies, I always loved stop motion animation and was just blown away by the work of Phil Tippet in the Empire Strikes Back. So seeing this magazine just electrified me. It was Issue 3 and I immediately ordered Issue 1 and 2 and signed up for a subscription. I have been with them ever since. I do believe that studying how they made things look real BEFORE computer animation makes you a better CG artist. In addition to discussing technique, Cinefex also took on the harder subjects of "why" artists put things into a shot to achieve the desired look. Cinefex articles probed after this illusive concept: what details need to be added to a shot that will only be noticed if they are NOT there! That is a tough concept to teach. Long before CGI took us through the uncanny valley in creating photo real humans, Cinefex took us through the uncanny valley of building miniature towns, forests, waterfalls, airplanes, trains, and cities. The techniques discussed in lighting, creating atmosphere, making things look like they are in space or underwater and how to move the camera realistically through an SFX miniature all translate perfectly to improving your work as an artist in CGI. Cinefex taught me what makes something look real and they have stayed with that focus even as the technology changed from analog to digital. I will definitely feel their absence going forward and while in NO way comparable to all that people have lost during this horrible pandemic, I still do feel a sense of loss. Dave P.S. The last issue (#172) has already been completely sold out.

Great modeling...but that is to be expected from the "Quad Father" (wow...I wish I had thought of that handle). I love the style and that little girl has "quads to die for"....hmmmm....that didn't quite come across the way I wanted it to. But just wondering if the pupils appear a tad too close together. Dave

Okay....while I agree with all the comments about the cut-out people and their ability to cross phase in and out of our quantum continuum, I think it is important for us to provide some "positive" feedback simply because we all need encouragement every now and then. The building and its weathering are very good! The moss growing in the corner of the building and around the hand-rails is an excellent touch. The water stains at the base and top of the building read very real. Not sure if the water puddle on the bricks is part of the texture or added on, but it goes well with making the environment look very weathered. I can also smell the mildew when I look at that building. In short, the building (which is fake) looks more real than the people which are real. Very difficult to realistically blend photo cut-outs in the 3D environment. You should now have a slight appreciation for what VFX artists go through trying to make actors shot against green screen blend with their CG backgrounds. The LED volumes being created based on the success of the Mandalorian are pure genius (IMHO). I thought it was very smart to put 2D people ONLY in the shadows in your early WIPs where the lighting is very flat and they are not casting any shadows. Very difficult to match lighting and shadow contrast to a 3D background. That is why the women walking in the white shirt stands out as she should be in shadow but appears as if she is n bright sun. Conversely, the women on the bench is in bright sun but there is no self-shadowing. Now is the trash modeled or also a 2D cut-out? The box behind the trash-can and the bottle on top of it look to be part of the same scene so they must be modeled. But pizza box and empty coke bottle do not look like they are part of the scene so I am wondering if they are a 2D cut-out. As it was already mentioned that there was too much trash, just remove them. The box behind the trash-can and the bottle on top are enough. But overall, you have come a long way and I can see the improvement. Remember, you are trying to model reality....no one ever said reality was easy! Dave

I need all the capabilities of the C4D object manager, material manager and texture manager (now the Project Asset Inspector --- not a fan of that name) and the ability to make changes to a parametric primitive after it has been added to a scene (loosing that capability in Blender's as soon as you drop the tool really irritates me). Having the same intelligence that C4D has in accessing and changing everything in the scene would remove a lot of the inherent "clunkiness" of Blender. But I am beginning to feel that Blender experts embrace its quirks. Having to delete the cube with each new scene irritates but seems to be a big part of the Blender culture....kind of like the Suzanne primitive. Since when does clunky and/or odd become a selling point? But I will admit that I do envy those who have mastered the program such that is navigation is now second nature. They are getting a really capable package that maintains a frenetic development pace such that its toolset in some ways beats their competition in terms of features and stability ---all for free! Dave

Wow. Apart from it being just gorgeous on every frame, it is also a shining example of humility...… Why you ask? Well, amongst all the credits being shown, they never snuck in one for themselves! Not sure I could ever be that humble after creating something that good. Dave

The 3D enthusiast in me loved the topology and the modeling detail but got a headache thinking about aligning all those parts. The mechanical engineer in me loved it. The bottom springs connected to the 4 bar linkage keep pressure against the power lines while the top four springs keep the connecting bar standing straight - otherwise it would be pushed back as it ran against the power lines. Nice design. Don't forget that the bottom feet probably have some form of electrical isolation underneath them to insulate the rest of the train from the current. Can not wait to see more! Dave

While not a magazine used for learning a particular application, I do love Cinefex. A great magazine that goes into professional FX on major motion pictures. They also have an iPad edition as well. What I do get out of that magazine are the discussions on how the artists strived for that last 5% between what looks good to what looks real. That attention to detail in lighting, texturing, camera shake, and the art of putting detail into the scene that you will ONLY notice if it is NOT there. Those are invaluable and very hard to learn lessons. Unfortunately, what was once a bi-monthly publication has not produced a magazine since June, 2020 due to COVID. If the movies are not being released, then they can't publish the magazine. I hope to get the next issue in February and looking forward to reading up on Season 2 of the Mandalorian....but we will see. Dave

Absolutely agree...just look at my avatar. Unfortunately, I think this will fall on deaf ears. Now, IMHO, indie is another word for hobbyist. If you are a true independent one-person shop generating a revenue with C4D, then the subscription model probably works for you. What you create is for clients and not for yourself. Once the job is completed, your attachment to the work ends when the paycheck comes in. But hobbyists like myself are attached to our work. We want the option to hold onto what we have created without being locked into a yearly subscription cost. For us, it is all about the end-game. At some point, we will stop using the program and everything we have created is now gone as well. That creates a sense of loss that keeps us from going with subscriptions. Many on this forum are not hobbyists and have trouble understanding this point of view. But if an indie version is to be considered, then there has to be some limitations to it. Usually these are render size limitations as that pretty much keeps anyone from doing commercial work with the indie package. As for me, I am good with some limitations on render size in exchange for a lower annual perpetual license cost. As long as it looks good on my monitor, I am good. Not sure if the other packages you quoted have limitations or not with the indie version. The other point I agree with you on is that I too love C4D. It just feels like home. It all makes sense. It has an internal logical consistency in how it is designed. The software does NOT get in the way of creation. That is tough to walk away from but at some point there could be financial situations that force that decision. Honestly, I do fear that day. But...as lofty as your objective is, be prepared for nothing to come of it. Dave

That is a perfect description of Chris....brain synchronicity with C4D....or what I like to refer to as "Stream of consciousness workflow" -- you will it to happen and C4D responds such that you are not even aware that a mouse and keyboard were involved. That is level of Chris' mastery of C4D and it shows in his teaching because there is nothing he cannot explain clearly. Dave

Time code is at 7:08 in case anyone is wondering. Great to hear it...if only to fully understand how to exactly pronounce your name. I do hope to meet you someday and want to make sure I get it right otherwise you will run into this problem again but in person! His overall recognition starts at 7:00 with (I think) a shout out to Srek (Bjorn) at 7:06. Great speech too. An overall class act! Dave

Yes...Hugo Award winning author. I have mentioned that sci-fi is my favorite genre for 3D modeling. I guess I just have sci-fi on the brain. Dave