3D-Pangel

When you think about all the 3D packages that used to exist in the 90's and early 2000's, it is rather sad when compared to now many exist today.

Here is what I can remember:

Still alive and kicking and taking name in the 3D world:

• Maya
• Houdini
• Cinema 4D
• Blender

Still alive....but maybe not kicking as hard as before as they certainly are not growing their name brand like they used to:

• 3D Studio Max
• modo

Still alive...but in name only as people just are not talking about them

• Strata 3D 
• Lightwave 3D 
• Hash Animation Master
• DAZ

Sold to another company and for the most part dead

• Ray Dream Studio - Merged with Infini-D
• Infini-D  - Sold to DAZ
• Byrce - Sold to DAZ
• Carrara - Sold to DAZ
• trueSpace - Sold to Microsoft and then killed
• Softimage - Purchased by Microsoft, converted to Windows NT to prove that Windows could handle high-end computing to win business from Silicon Graphics, then sold to Autodesk and then killed.

In case anyone is wondering what Michael Giebel looks like, you need go no further than the asset browser under "Wall Coverings"

A rather touching surprise and one that I was not looking for.

Dave

As an aside, when Cerbera sees a sign like this - whether he is modeling or on his powered unicycle - he speeds up in hopes of a challenge.

Hopefully, this never happens to C4D.

Can't imagine modeling a street without this command.

While not necessarily a 3D command, ultimately, we have all faced this realization during the course of a project at least once in our lives (and if you are me, it is once every project).

Dave

1 hour ago, rasputin said:

"Stiction".    Is that really the word they're using now in particle sims?

Probably not.  Stiction is more of a mechanical engineering term and indicates a threshold when a force overcomes static friction (hence the term "stiction"). 

Sorry....Sometimes my day job as a engineer creeps unexpectedly into my hobby.  

Dave

After looking at that video, I would not call that grains (IMHO).  True grains must include some level of stiction between particles while following the principle of smooth particle hydrodamics (sph).  What I saw in that video did not even look like standard dynamics given how the particles were swirling in masse.  It looked cool but it was definitely not grains.

Sorry, but this is one area where I think Insydium does a pretty good job....but then again, they have had SPH even when X-Particles did only just particles so many years of development and improvement. 

And let me beat you to the punch:  Of course, Houdini can do all things better and there is just no way Insydium can compete with Houdini.  But let's keep this to what you can accomplish within C4D and if the discussion is around grains, then Insydium is your best option until Maxon decides to focus on it for a future release.

Dave

Truely a great find and requires more exploration!!!

My initial trial though was a little less than what I expected.  I just typed in "Sci-Fi Hull" and selected "matte" and got this:

Actually, it looks like a bunch of broken air-conditioners to me.  Again, more investigation is required.

Dave

Very happy to see that people are still writing books about C4D.  Why?  Well, why not very practical given the reasons stated above, it does warm the nostalgic centers of my brain.

There is also this book as well: Maxon Cinema 4D 2023: A Detailed Guide to MoGraph (neuronsfactory.com)

I can't imagine a book on Mograph given the nature of the subject --- hard to capture "motion" graphics in print.  

Then there is:  Maxon Cinema 4D 2023: A Detailed Guide to Shading, Lighting, and Rendering (neuronsfactory.com)

Now, this book is really misplaced as it focuses on the standard and physical render only....no mention of Redshift.

But still, I am loving the nostalgic flashback these books are giving me.

Personally, if you were dead set on writing a book, I think you could get more mileage out a well written book that touches on fixes to various modeling issues that promote good topology.   This could even be program agnostic and just provide the cookbook steps to various modeling issues we all face. You wouldn't even need to use words....just step by step diagrams that you can use as a resource.

Does Pradeep Mamgain's modeling book do that? Well, the books description implies that but there are no sample images from what is inside the book (a bit of a warning flag).  So I have no idea.

On the plus side, the books are not that expensive.

Dave

Not sure what this will mean for anyone, but thought it was worth mentioning:

Quote

Dear LightWave Community,  

 

LightWave 3D is a proven, Emmy award-winning modelling, animation and render program, with a legion of followers and dedicated users such as yourselves. At Vizrt Group we have been looking for a home that offers the commitment and the enthusiasm it deserves.  

 

With over 30 years in the animation and FX industry, Andrew Bishop and his team have now stepped forward to acquire LightWave 3D under the name LightWave Digital. Some of you may know Andrew from his VFX work and bringing LightWave 3D to UK and European market alongside handling distribution in the UK. 

 

We did not make this decision lightly. The desire has always been to ensure LightWave 3D has a future with a team that has a strong desire to breathe new life into the technology, bring more value to users, and usher in the next generation of 3D graphics for film, animation, and VFX.   

 

We are certain under this ownership; Andrew and his team will deliver this and more. As our transaction with Andrew and his team finalizes, more information will be shared.  

 

For now, the new team can be contacted through this Discord channel here.

Andrew Bishop is head of animation at Quantum Digital in London.   

Interesting and shows how the mighty have fallen. 

So whenever you see something like this, your thoughts turn to your favorite application and where that software may end up over the years should market forces, like AI or the rise of growing conglomerates of software/assets like the new Fab and Unreal, begin to transform the market in ways we could never imagine. 

For me, that would be like Aixsponza buying C4D.

Dave

Well....unfortunately, there are still problems:

This is using MS Edge and Chrome.  You do get a "Starting Download" message but then nothing happens.   As both share the same core architecture, I tried Firefox and that successfully downloaded.

So for those who get the download links, if you are still having problems try another browser (e.g., Firefox).

Dave

All,

I just ordered the training and my email with the download link came pretty fast (less than one minute).      Now apart from blocked domain issues which I have struggled with on emails from Maxon in the past, all I can offer is this:

This screen appears AFTER you hit "Checkout" but it is NOT the final step.  The final step is to hit "Place Order".

I hope this helps.

Dave

4 hours ago, EricNS said:

 

It's just a matter of time.

 

Your threads make me think your are still sceptical about AI. But the debate is over. AI will replace the software we use. It will also replace most of the people working in the CG and VFX industries.

More concerned than skeptical and not just over the VFX sofware (the most benign example of the impact AI will have on us over the long term).

My primary concern with AI is that over time, it will weaken out natural ability or desire to think critically, to problem solve, to be creative.   If you don't believe me, then let me offer you an example of some software that, while not AI per se, has been around long enough to show that our dependency on it is having an impact on our ability to think for ourselves:  GPS systems such as Waze or Google Maps.

How well are you learning the roads in a new area when you are relying on the GPS system to give you step by directions?   We have had GPS systems giving us directions ever since the Gulf war in the 90's.  So, a growing inability to really understand how to get around in a new area is more noticeable to those who are old enough to remember the "old" days before such systems existed.    It takes us longer to figure out for ourselves how to get anywhere because we don't have to think for ourselves.  We are not keeping an eye out for road signs and route numbers.  We are not internalizing the cities and towns those routes connect because we are not focused on finding the right route.  When we become dependent on the GPS directions, then we only think when it tells us to turn.  We really don't internalize what route we turned onto as we are just blindly following what the program tells us to do.   Do we care what towns are connected to the north when all we are told is to go south?  No.  So it takes us longer to "learn the roads". 

Ever have Waze tell you to take a road that it does not know is closed?  Do you feel a bit of panic in that moment as you quietly think (for the first time in a long time while driving):  "Now what do I do?".  You now have a problem that you are not used to solving on your own (the first step being the ability to read a map).

Well, that is what happens you develop a dependency on software and the software fails you.  It will be no different as AI systems begin to encroach on every aspect of our lives.  

I was shocked to find out that my company is using ChatGPS to generate small bits of code for certain projects and that the ability for that AI system to create useable code is quite high.  So now we are not even using our critical thinking skills to create the code that will remove the need for us to think critically.

This trend is just beginning.   Have a problem?  Just speak into the AI engine and your problem will be solved.

Can this negatively shape society!  Well, my ability to think critically about this tells me "Yes".  Why?  Because all AI engines are not unbiased problem solvers.  Feed it one type of data and you get only one set of solutions.  The AI program will "inherit" the bias of its developers.  We are manipulated by the inherent bias of the program should we blindly follow what the AI gives us without first critically thinking about what that solution means to us as individuals.  It is that simple.

Sorry, but I cherish the ability to think for myself.  Over the coming years, I don't want to get lazy about it and give my control to an app on my phone that will do that thinking for me.    Hitting the proverbial "Road Closed" sign in any area of life without the critical thinking skills to figure it out on my own is a very uncomfortable feeling.

Dave

On 3/5/2023 at 7:37 AM, clarence said:

Good to hear. I’ll give it a try. Maybe it can motivate me to improve my modelling skills. 

Funny how out of all the programs being listed here, the only one that I took a deeper look at is also the only one being mentioned in the comments: Plasticity.

Not sure what this means.  Do we all have a deeper need for better modeling tools or skills?

I will admit that there are some features in Plasticity that I loved liked the automatic ability to make the center of an edge fillet a snap point in future modeling steps.  Honestly, I can't remember if C4D does that (I am on international travel right now and hunkered down in a hotel in Singapore killing time on my work laptop).

But there is one thing about those programs that ONLY show the edges of a feature (or face) that is made up of curves and filled with circular cut outs that bothers me.  I keep wondering what the final topology looks like.  You have to import that shape into something for texturing so I would imagine that the quality of that topology is important.  While the shape looks clean in that video demo posted above, you have to wonder what you will be left with when it gets imported into another program.

Dave

Actually, the best part is this statement:

"Purchasing a permanent license will have automatic maintenance renewal enabled by default at the maintenance prices listed above, however you can opt out during checkout. Users who have previously bought a permanent license will be able to purchase a full year of maintenance at any time after cancellation if they would like to receive new software updates."

You can't get any better than that*.  So, you pay for the full license and then at any point "in the future" you can get the current version for the cost of the SAME annual maintenance price.  

That just makes my hobbyist heart sing out loud with joy.

Dave

*Now...for the TFD people out there you may be wondering why I am not including the years of free maintenance provide by Jawset.  Those contributions should not be ignored, and I have a great amount of respect for Jawset's founder.  So maybe it is a marketing issue with Jawset more than anything else, but I have always viewed those updates as actual "maintenance", that is keeping the program running well within each host application, rather than an upgrade with new features.  What JangaFX is offering is the ability to get new features with future releases after years of NOT participating in the maintenance program for the cost of one year maintenance (eg. the modo model).

In other threads, I have talked about the alarming growth of AI and its ability to create 2D art, manipulate video images, replicate voices and produce fine works of literature.  I viewed these developments as a potential threat to individual identity.  If a piece of software could replicate your voice, words and images, then what is left to your digital identity and/or individual ability to protect your personal IP? 

Well, that trend continues with Wonder Studio

Based on their demo video's, it uses AI to replace live action characters in a shot with any 3D character of your choice and it only takes the adjustment of a few sliders to get it to work.  Is it really that easy?  Is AI that good?  

Well, I will grant that the software "appears" brilliant but what is even more brilliant is how that company got off the ground.  

Notice that it has two co-founders.  The first is Niko Todorovic.  Now as a VFX artist, he is the real force behind the vision of wonder Studio.  The second founder is a bit more interesting:  Tye Sheridan.  Tye is an actor but (IMHO) a brilliant choice.  Here is why.  Tye starred in Ready Player One about 3D virtual game worlds.  But more importantly, Tye probably had some connection to getting Steven Spielberg (Ready Player One's director) on Wonder Studio's board and then from there Joe Russo (Director of Avenger's Infinity War and End Game).

Now, did one lead to the other?  Not sure but it certainly feels that way as I know of no other 2D/3D AI application that has two "billion-dollar" directors on their advisory board.   And the cache that comes with their names then opens up a whole slew of other doors.  Notice that the other members on their advisory board also have influence in their own respective areas be it finance companies, private equity firms, and universities such as MIT and Berkeley.  Now is an AI program that does VFX shots sexy enough to attract the interest of top equity firms?  Probably not.  But maybe....just maybe....being on an advisory board with Steven Spielberg and Joe Russo does.

So there are big names and big money now behind Wonder Studio.  

Will it deliver?  Looks that way but if it doesn't then it will be huge embarrassment for all.  That is the downside of being associated with such big names:  it has to pay off.

But based on the videos it looks impressive.  Couple of observations:

1. You need to scale the replacement character to cover the original live action character.  I did not see much there on background replacement.  This could create some problems with how a director may want their shot framed and problems with scale continuity throughout.
2. You still need a 3rd party app for rendering.
3. No built-in capability for hair and cloth simulations.  If the app is supposed to do the compositing for you then it makes no sense to have the 3rd party app that does the rendering also do the hair and cloth simulations as those then need to be part of the composite as well.  
4. Is it restricted to only bipeds in its IK targeting algorithm?  It would have been neat to see it replace and horse "with a rider" with a 3D creature but the same live action video of the human rider.

So, there is still a lot of work that needs to be done for this to fully live up to its name of being a "Wonder Studio", but it is still impressive, nonetheless.

Finally, who is the target consumer for Wonder Studio?  I don't see Spielberg saying to Weta or ILM "okay we are going to use Wonder Studio exclusively on my next movie".  I don't see Weta throwing out the pipeline they developed for Avatar 2 and replacing it with Wonder Studio.  I don't see Blur saying, "okay the next in-game cinematics will all be made with Wonder Studio".

In short, Wonder Studio is NOT going to be the undoing of the professional "top-of-their-game" VFX studios or artists.  The audience is too sophisticated now in what they perceive as being "real" on the screen (be it a movie or a computer screen) and Wonder Studio has a long way to go to get to that level.

Wonder Studio's main market is at the other end of the professional spectrum (thus the port to Blender):  the indie game developer, the small VFX house for cable television shows and the YouTube content provider.   Corridor Digital will jump on this....DNEG will not.

While this AI is still a disturbing sign of the future, it is still far behind audiences' expectations for believable VFX.  Fortunately, the demands those expectations are placing on professional VFX artists are still outpacing the developments in AI to fulfill them.  I see that trend continuing for quite some time.

Dave

Question:  So where are the AI modeling programs?  I have seen early work done on apps to create a 3D object from a few photo's (not photogrammetry programs like Meshroom) but the topology is horrible.  Still waiting for an AI program that can create a perfect quad mesh from a single still image that has perfect edge flow, polygonal flow and pristine UV mapping....all with minimal operator input.

That is pretty cool and a very good price.

Is there any way to replace voxel elements with another object...that is, each voxel defines the extents for the replacement object which is then scaled to fit perfectly within that voxel.

Just wondering how to use this to create ancient structures made out of brick where a worn and ancient brick replaces each of the voxels.  My mind went to this famous LOTR image as soon as I saw the gif's. 

Now, the plugin can't do this as the blocks were sculpted after being put in place, but you get the idea.

Just a thought.

Dave

To be fair, the artists at DNEG have done exceptional work.  My understanding is that Carnage was a troubled production with many re-writes, changes, etc. 
That shows itself in the story which (IMHO) deserves all the criticisms you heaped on the VFX shots:  mediocre, lacking detail, definition, etc.   Honestly, the best ingredient to a believable VFX shot is a good story with great direction.   If you get caught up in the story you really are not focusing on the lighting, shadows and textures.   

So when you have a troubled production and there are constant changes, then all of that adds up to lack of time and/or planning for the VFX artists.    Trust me, I am pretty confident the VFX artists were as critical (if not more so) than you were to their shots, but they just ran out of the time they thought they had because it was taken away from them to the chaotic nature of the production.

Just my 2 cents.  

Dave

8 minutes ago, HappyPolygon said:

 

Splines under a Volume Builder/Mesher with a Displacer Defrormer using an animated noise

TAKE THAT HOUDINI  !!

Very well done.  

Dave

On 3/12/2023 at 9:47 AM, HappyPolygon said:

 

 

Sooo....for those who work with MoGrpah....if you look closely, this not just a simple matter of the spline growth along a path that can be controlled with fields.  There is bubbling going on at the very beginning and I am not sure that fields can do that.

Thoughts?

Dave

On 3/10/2023 at 2:14 AM, Igor said:

 I just can't get into Blender. For me it's a big no no due to constant need of add-ons. It's very hard to follow tutorials sometimes. 

Interesting comment from a person who has mastered Houdini.  Maybe we are more afraid of Houdini then we need to be.  But I will agree that Blender tutorials can be a bit hard to follow.  I think it has to do with the UI.   While 2.8+ is far more useable, there are just too many levels of menus which resorts to an overdependence on hot-keys.  Now, hot-keys are the way to go for speed and efficiency but when a tutorial becomes nothing BUT hot-keys (which they all do after the short introductory overview), then they are hard to follow.    Invariably the instructor will move so fast that they forget to mention the hot-key but rather just focus on the function which then prompts the student to stop the video, look up the actual command that corresponds to that function, replicate that step on their own computer, and then hit play again.  Do that 30+ times in any one tutorial and ultimately fatigue sets in. 

In that respect, I can see why procedural programs like Houdini (and to some extent C4D) are easier to follow due to their more non-destructive behavior.  Every step is up there on the screen.

Quote

I might try to make it because actually Cinema helped me understand Houdini in some regards so I might try explain how. It's mostly about objects and it's hierarchy. 

+ 1 for that!!!

Quote

There are plenty tutorials you might try but I suggest you go to SideFX site and download their new pdf about fundamentals. 

https://www.sidefx.com/tutorials/foundations-book/

 

From there you have tons of content. 

That book is incredible.  Just started to flip through it.   At 226 pages, there really is a ton of content!!!!

Dave

For those who want to dive a little deeper into the logic of shortest path algorithm, a good explanation of what is considered one of the better algorithms (and there are many) is Dijkstras algorithm is found here.  If you want to see an example of that algorithm in python code, then look here for some explanation or select the python tab at the bottom of the first link I provided.

I looked this up because I wanted to know whether shortest path was calculated on a node-by-node basis (that is at each node point it only selects the nearest node) or whether there was some logic that looked at the overall path length because the actual shortest overall path may entail taking the longest path between any two individual nodes at some points.

Pretty cool stuff.

A neat application would be for creating industrial piping.  Secondary step would be to then and fillets to every spline.

Dave

Igor,

You have some incredible skill!  Honestly.  In any other program, your work would be impressive but the fact that you have mastered Houdini to produce at this level of quality should open a few doors for you simply because you ARE A RARITY!!!!!

Bravo!

Dave

5 minutes ago, Igor said:

Now when I am thinking more about it, I remember saying at one Maxon meeting how our Pie Menu is ugly and we should done something about it...that wasn't received well as people just looked me like wtf!  

 

Anyway,  there are definitely differences mostly in how they feel when you using them and how you actually interact with them. Maya and Blender are definitely best in that field. In Houdini, they are simple enough to setup, to use and that's it. No fancy stuff, just simple as possible yet effective. 

Honestly, I think that when any menu can be conjured up at a random location in your viewport, you really need some haptic feedback in your mouse (e.g., a slight vibration) to tell you that you are over an icon.  Otherwise, all eyes are on the menu to read in a circle which (for me at least) tends to slow me down as I am faster at reading left to right or scan top to bottom on a standard menu than reading in a circular pattern.  Plus, the constant shift to move my eyes around in a circle can cause eyestrain.

I tried C4D's pie menus some time ago and, for the reasons stated above, stopped using them and just put what I needed into my standard layout.  It had nothing to do with how the pie menu looked in C4D (don't they all somewhat look the same?) but rather how I interacted with them.

But the haptic feedback would help you build the muscle memory the Maya guys were talking about all those years ago when they cited using pie menus is like driving a stick shift.  If they had that, then that would be something really "new" that would prompt me to both try them again and get a new mouse.

Just my 2 cents.

Dave

9 hours ago, Igor said:

Pie Menus are really awesome. I am using them for everything, not just modeling. Pretty awesome for quick setups. 

Aren't pie menus rather old by now?  They have been around for a while now in C4D and I remember talks as far back as 2005 discussing pie menus in Maya and how using them invited "muscle memory" similar to the same muscle memory you have when using a stick shift.

Is there something new with how pie menus are being implemented today?

Dave

I can understand why everyone talks about Blender (it is free).  I can understand why everyone talks about Houdini (it is powerful).  And I can understand why everyone talks about C4D "on this forum" (because that is where we all came from originally).

So of those three, it would be understandable how Blender and Houdini may also be talked about on other forums as well.

But is anyone talking about modo anymore?  Honestly.  Do a quick YouTube search on C4D, and you will find tutorials being posted today and/or this week.  Do the same for modo and the most recent one I could find was from 10 months ago.

So what is the "word on the street" on modo?  Is it worth learning?  Did it overcome its stability issues?  Is it growing?

In short, in the discussion of what programs to learn "after" C4D, no one mentions Modo?

Personally, I just don't like the "idea" of once again creating different service classes within an individual program.    And those special capsules are just that. You can't get this feature in C4D unless you upgrade to the "higher" service class offered by MaxonOne.  

Doesn't that fly in the face of all the noise we heard about the legal and software difficulties of offering an indie license?   The license management was too difficult!  Managing the different capabilities of a full and indie license was too difficult.  Isn't that what they told us?  Their arguments made sense because they got rid of Prime, Broadcast, etc citing those same reasons.  But for some reason they have gone back to "technically" offering two different sets of C4D capability under two different license models.

I guess you can solve those software and licensing problems when creating a "higher" service class as that leads to a higher revenue opportunity, but they remain unsolvable if you are going to a lower service class that people are hoping for with an indie license.