cinema 9 and xsi integration

[grundgedanke]

mhh, a question. did you give the cinema renderer a chance? i won´t say that xsi renderer (mr) is "better". and one´s for sure. cinema renderer is faster :-)

[lllab]

mr is very highend, with superb GI( better than cinema i would say)
although cinema is faster in a lot of things.

try fbx format!

cheers

lllab

[ThirdEye]

mr is very highend, with superb GI( better than cinema i would say)
although cinema is faster in a lot of things.

try fbx format!

i guess you mean their light based radiosity (which C4D doesnt' have) since XSI's Final Gather doesn't look better than our GI solution at all.

[moka.studio]

.... in any case, sure MR is considered to be one of the top high end renderers.... but, for 99% of the situations, AR from c4d will probably do just as well, unless you are a large studio with MR integrated in the pipeline, designing your own shaders etc etc...
This is knid of OT, but some people ( I am not accusing Franz78, his questions are very valid) have this "best ranked" reflex, where they automatically assume that MRay, or Maya in a more genreal sense, is just plain "better", without taking into account their limitations/ differences with other solutions.
jp

[Per-Anders]

find someone willing to code a dotxsi bridge for you. or wait till someone else does that. otherwise just use the standard export functionality of cinema, and bring in your models to xsi that way. just be aware that xsi has a couple of interesting bugs with certain import filters (if you do a search in the xsi forum these should come up, though possibly some of them got resolved for 4.2).

[MJV]

franz78 I'm in a similar situation. I want to do my character animation in XSI and render backgrounds in Cinema. Between the bugs in Cinema's fbx and XSI's fbx, that option looks like pretty much of a non starter, and since Alias purchased Motion Builder I assume it's on a course marked for extinction. All I really need is a reliable method for getting models from Cinema into XSI, and exchanging camera data between the two, and I'd be willing to pay a great deal for the privilege, but I've not found any reliable method so far.

[LucentDreams]

I know te camera issues you are referring to michael, but is getting the models that hard really, FBX and OBJ should both work.

Mindthnk.de would be the place to go if you have the money there is a connection available

[FunBucket]

I'm in a similar situation. I'm wanting to model and texture in c4d, bring that into xsi for animation, then bring it back into c4d, and maybe render in maxwell. Sounds like it could be a great pipeline (if maxwell ends up being fast enough for animation.)

The only way for this to work properly would be to use point oven once it's available for xsi, and then use the new mdd reader for c4d to bring it back in. Eventually point oven is supposed to be available for c4d, too, but who knows when that'll be.

[MJV]

I know te camera issues you are referring to michael, but is getting the models that hard really, FBX and OBJ should both work.

Mindthnk.de would be the place to go if you have the money there is a connection available

Obj works yes but not FBX.

[MJV]

Kai, I went to mindthink.de but couldn't find the connection you spoke of.

[rush123]

I think 'Point Oven' from Mark Wilson will transfere data to XSI.

[MJV]

Yes it will, if you have LW or Maya.

[rush123]

I think you can use this MDD reader plugin (http://www.animationsnippets.com/plugins/cinema4dplugins/mddreader/index.html)
by Christopher Lutz along with Point Over (possible 1.4 out soon!), This should work

[franz78]

hi guys,
thank you all for your reply i think that the integration and correct comunication workflow is the real poit of future devellopment of software.
in my opinion ther isnt a perfect software to do all and i hope that anyone find the right way to this problem

thank you and sorry for my englesh

franz

[rendermania]

The scene-translation/communication problem between different types of 3D software has been so persistent for years that I don't really believe any sort of translation/exchange bridge will solve the needs of productions that require multiple sets of 3D tools to get completed. It would be much easier to create a neutral framework that can host multiple sets of modeling, character animation, texturing, dynamics, particles, scripting, rendering etc tools than figure out how to make 3D apps Tom, Dick and Harriet talk to each other efficiently. At least that's what I think.

If anything, that sort of general 3D work framework will likely come from open-source. Simply doesn't make much sense from a business/competitiveness standpoint for competing 3D software firms to integrate their tools too closely, because there's a lot of overlap in functionality between them.

[MJV]

If anything, that sort of general 3D work framework will likely come from open-source. Simply doesn't make much sense from a business/competitiveness standpoint for competing 3D software firms to integrate their tools too closely, because there's a lot of overlap in functionality between them.

FBX looked very promising but now that it's been purchased by Alias, I think that's more or less the end of it. I think you're right that only an open-source that is embraced by the industry has any chance.

[CGTalk Moderation]

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.