jwiede

Yeah, with Kuroyume's Poser import plugin long-dead, C4D's needed a decent Daz3D importer that fully processes and connects up available morphs, articulation, and so forth. I'll gladly purchase a license ASAP if this effort ever comes to fruition.

Looking at those I can't find a couple really useful ones, so had a few questions about users' capabilities w.r.t. nodal materials: 1. Can users cast our own rays via nodes as needed, both for locality and boundary-checking as well as render-related pathing? 2. Can users replicate complex material nodes using node networks (handling complex sampling scenarios, etc.)? 3. Could a user build an Rounded Edge shader themselves using nodes? 4. Can users create node networks that generate "internal scattering" SSS-type effects / volumetric sampling? Thanks! And my apologies if some of these were already asked, still wading through all the replies in the thread.

It's doubtful that a 4K display alone would consume enough of a 1080's VRAM. It sounds like there may be a problem with Pascal-family GPUs, perhaps raise the issue over on the TFD forums (forum.jawset.com)?

Alas, as a paid Mac customer of Effex 2.8 (and since 1.x), this doesn't really help me. I deeply appreciate the effort, and I'm glad for Windows Effex customers, but it doesn't resolve my situation. I can't get a working serial code for R19 for my existing commercial install, and he hasn't posted the Mac version in github (yet, anyway).

Let me say first that I was deeply sorry to hear of Samir's medical issues. I've had some serious medical problems in my life as well, and appreciate how devastating they can be. At the same time, I didn't have the luxury of just "walking away" from my financial and business obligations when it happened to me, and I'm more than a little bit disturbed that there's repeating pattern emerging where that's precisely what these "small shop" plugin vendors selling high-priced plugins are doing, considering it perfectly acceptable conduct I've lost thousands of dollars of third-party plugin investments in the last year after just a few (<3) plugin vendors disappearing. History shows it only takes bad behavior by a few vendors to result in serious impact on the economic health of an entire platform ecosystem. It's fine to express sympathy for the issues they encounter, but I'm shocked at how nobody seems to be particularly disturbed by the aftermath in these cases. It's already difficult to make money in third-party plugins, but these high-end vendors destroying customer trust only make it that much harder for other plugin devs to achieve any success. I'm sorry they have issues in their lives, but failing to make any provisions for existing customers' 100%-foreseeable needs for serial updates/renewals, etc. (esp. after asking multi-hundreds of dollars for plugins, once or more) is just a completely unacceptable level of business planning, IMO bordering on the unethical.

Thanks so much for passing along the C4D aaOcean link! Very much appreciated!

Your answer was fine, thanks. I'm just looking for any additional details about the precise technical problem blocking ProRender on Nvidia on macOS. The whole point of OpenCL was to work on both AMD and Nvidia GPUs, after all.

Anyone have a pointer to the explanation handy?

For those of us with Macs & Nvidia cards, was there ever any clarification on whether ProRender would even work? I'm fine if Nvidia cards aren't "supported" but are functional in C4D ProRender on macOS, less so if they arbitrarily disabled ability to run on Nvidia macOS.

What version of ZBrush are you using? Modern ZBrush4 UV, polygroups, spotlight, and polypaint toolset are actually quite powerful and flexible for both UV and texture painting work. While the workflows for each are a bit different than the equivalents in "standard" 3D apps, once you take the time to understand the ZBrush workflows, its toolset are every bit as capable (and can work smoothly with very high poly-count objects that would choke "std" 3D pkgs). Having used MODO for years, I'll just reaffirm what others here have said: MODO's UV toolset is much more powerful than C4D's/BP's, and IMO, one of the most powerful UV toolsets on the market now (as of 11.1). MODO's painting capabilities aren't as amazing, but still beat BP in areas like symmetry support, and overall ease of workflow (esp. w.r.t. map and channel controls). I suspect the updated BP might win out over MODO when it comes to working with larger poly-count objects, but we'll have to see.

While the BP viewport improvements are quite impressive in their own right (and they are!), the Beta does highlight just how outdated many aspects of the BP workflow are compared to more modern alternatives -- and in the same manner, that same light really shows the "dust" gathered on the UV tools and workflow. I don't actually expect much more within R18 beyond the already-shown BP viewport improvements. That said, I do think MAXON should consider throwing R18 customers another bone by finally adding symmetry (XYZ & radial) support in BP as well -- it's kind of ridiculous for any painting system to lack that functionality in this day and age. That's great to hear! BTW, anyone looking for modern, efficient painting features and UX in C4D should take a serious look at this plugin/technology.

I appreciate the quick answer, thanks!

Anyone know if there's an aaOcean plugin available for C4D (R18)? I know about the HOT port, but am looking specifically for aaOcean because it produces better surfacing in certain ways. Thanks!

Can you clarify, is the Vray 2.0 version the same as the regular 3.0 version in terms of functionality? What are the differences between Spritz Vray 2.0 and Spritz 3.0?

Is the Mac version at full parity with the Windows version?