CGTalk - from Lightwave POV, C4D

williamsburroughs

10-12-2006, 03:17 PM

I too was also a big LightWave guy through 6-7.5. After using C4D R8+ I have never looked back, nor regretted a single moment of it's use.

I would recommend downloading the demo of C4D and posting your questions here in this thread. We are here to help you along...but it's a solid app that does a lot of great things. First pointer would be to really learn the Multi-Pass nature of rendering...it will make your work sing and your brain be at peace. :)

AR does a bang up job for most all of my work (heavy organics and mograph and illustration).

We have a couple options as far as rendering engines finalRender, Maxwell, PRMAn, and soon we will have vRay.

All in all i don't feel that I am lacking any tools. Sure some things could be optimized, but these things are usually taken care of with point releases.

Let me know if you have any other questions. And have a look @ my site for my C4D work to confirm its quality in your eyes.

ThirdEye

10-12-2006, 03:28 PM

For example how is Arch viz? Do you guys have problems with importing DWG? Can i use LW modeler as my main modelling application and export my models to C4D and render there? I dont think i will leave LW's modeler but i NEED a fast rendering engine and reliable effect software which has a bridge to Composition software.

Arch Viz is a mixed up subject. There's no DWG importer afaik, only DXF, but there are some CAD apps that are connected directly to Cinema4D: for example ArchiCAD, Allplan and VectorWorks. What exactly do you need to import? Autocad plans?
Since you want to keep using LW Modeler you'll be happy to know that C4D correctly imports both lwo and lws files.

My main composition tool is AfterEffects (my 10th years with it. I am loving it) So integration level between C4D and After Effects simply outstanding. So probably C4D is a de facto tool for Broadcast animation and they simply explode with Mograph module.

The AFX bridge is a great one, you'll love it.

How fast the renderer is? If you compare with the speed of LW9. How good GI is? Is it easy to use like LW? Or will i lose myself just like in MAX? Is there any module strong as VRAY for C4D?

The renderer is very fast in many areas, slow in others. It's very fast with scanline, raytracing effects, area shadows, blurry transparencies/reflections. The GI isn't that fast but it's surely faster than Lightwave.
There are 2 currently available external renderers: Maxwell and finalRender. Vray is coming, a bridge has been announced by a third party.

The best thing you can do is the following one: download the demo version from the Maxon website www.maxon.net (http://www.maxon.net) and try it out to see if it's what you're looking for. Good luck.

GruvDOne

10-12-2006, 03:47 PM

There are 2 currently available external renderers: Maxwell and finalRender. Vray is coming, a bridge has been announced by a third party.

Well really FR and Vray are only half-assed as they have no OSX support. I know this isn't a big deal for some, and since you mentioned MAX as an option (though one to avoid by your own admission) I assume you are using Win.

I know that FR claims that they will have OSX support in the "future", but whatever. It's only half a product until you support the entire user base.

lllab

10-12-2006, 03:52 PM

vray has been ported to osx already.
cheers
stefan

vid2k2

10-12-2006, 06:26 PM

Without using the FBX export, LW (v8) always crashed importing C4D files.

However, C4D has no problems importing LW files.

FWIW, that's been my experience.

williamsburroughs

10-12-2006, 06:49 PM

Without using the FBX export, LW (v8) always crashed importing C4D files.

However, C4D has no problems importing LW files.

FWIW, that's been my experience.

LW could never import C4D files. Maybe that's why it crashed on you. :drool:

It could import Electric Image files at some point though.

GaryDXD

10-12-2006, 06:53 PM

I have been using Lightwave for about 12 years now. I have dabbled in Maya and 3DS Max. But I'm REALLY leaning toward Cinema4D for motion graphics work because of its tight integration with After Effects, plus MoGraph is amazing. I don't think there is any reason to abandon Lightwave, but who knows, after I start getting into Cinema, I may be able to take the "Training Wheels" off and start using Cinema for more projects. What I'm getting really annoyed with in Lightwave is the whole HUB Modeler/Layout process. It's archaic. On the whole, it just feels like C4D is a better programmed application and they just keep making it better and better.

Per-Anders

10-12-2006, 07:16 PM

Everyone else has pretty much covered it all, but i'll just pipe up and say that I moved from Lightwave to C4D too, the reason I moved though might be of interest, at first when I used it I wasn't overtly impressed, it felt very much slower to work in, and I missed several modeling tools and workflows however I gave it a week, went through the tutorials, it was then that I did a side by side test with some realworld models, and I came to the (for me) shocking conclusion that i was modeling much faster in C4D than I had ever done or could ever really hope to do in lightwave, with more precision and I had learnt more in that week than in all the time i'd been in contact with lightwave or any other 3d app, it was easy, fast and it was actually fun, and then they announced the R8 update and I knew the app was more modern, a better investment shall we say, so i bought it and never looked back (though I have since expanded my arsenal or apps, though only for work reasons).

As everyone else has said I'll also say, download the demo, try it out for yourself, feel free to ask questions. Also check out the "New users and demo users FAQ" sticky at the top of the forum, it should help you over the bump of the standard interface differences between C4D & Lightwave.

helluvapixel

10-12-2006, 10:46 PM

I started in LW but then C4D was a no brainer for me for a multitude of reasons. Those who know me, know me best by the sheer number of polygons required for processing the CAD models in the utmost detail.
As an example, it's not uncommon for me to deal with 2 million + polygons.

1) No scene geometry modeling... which leads us fast to ....

2) LW Modeler : Sadly underpowered, weak opengl to say the least. There is no way I can create or edit into a scene with more than 100,000 polys in LW. I need to deal with geometry at the scene level. While modeler is smooth operation at somethings, it's buggy as hell when you need to add bevels and fillets. C4D's bevel tool is superb (v9.5 reference)

3) Materials: managing materials is easier in C4D. Creating them... well that's an argument for later but to add materials to objects and manage them is more clear in C4D.

4) Multipass rendering: Clear and easy with C4D. Some improvements need to be done, but in essence it's all there. You aren't trying to add the 'surface' option in the composite area in LW's material manager.

5) Object manipulation and reorganizing: Drag and drop and clearly visible. LW can do it, and it can work but the scene editor was buggy when I used and I have to deal with hundreds of parts which leads me to:

6) Object management and consolidating: being the meshes are dense in triangles and many times after import I want to reduce the object count for rendering optimizations, C4D is excellent here. First off, I can use the poly reduction tool and it is even animateable. No QEMLOSS for me.. it never worked well and nevermind the fact it is not parametric (can't animate it). To combine objects is easy in C4D, select them and then connect them and delete old objects.

7) Excellent LWS/LWO support. You should find that the heirarchy of LWS scene is great for importing models from other sources to C4D (i.e. CAD->PolyTrans->LWS->C4D)

8) Workflow. This is hard for me to substantiate but with LW, the windows and panels were too many, far to modular and it felt clunky. To me it just gets irritating. I tried using LW9 the other day, I didn't like it, it was hard to find stuff and that leads me to my last point...

9) User interface customization: LW's buttons and tabs are dated and hardly functional for hardcore UI updating. C4D is very object oriented, drag and drop. You need it to look like LW, XSI or Maya... it can be done.

What I don't like in C4D is pretty short but here goes:

1) pricing scheme seems a bit lopsided for studio users(many threads about this, don't start arguing about it here)
2) Global Illumination and radiosity effects are terrible slow versus other renderers.
3) More multipass options for shadow catching etc (IMO XSI is a good system using passes and partitions)

Mylenium

10-13-2006, 05:59 AM

Well, been using LW ever since v4, had used C4D from v 5.21 to v8, then stopped and came back now, had some Power Animator and Maya inbetween. There are definitely good reasons to use C4D, but if you're smart, keep LW around. Unfortunately at the moment C4D's greatest weakness is the material and rendering system and with the v9 update, LW easily surpasses C4D in many respects in that particular field.

Personally I never thought I'd use C4D for some of my "serious" tech-viz animations because the old F-Curve editor was so crap, but with R10 that may change since it's been greatly improved. With the new IRR in R10 I may also no longer miss FPrime that much, though it's not exactly the same and C4D still needs to greatly improve in GI, for which you have better alternatives with FPrime, Kray and various AO shaders in LW.

Though MoGraph is just about 50% where it possibly could be, it's a gem and already a uniqe reason to get C4D as are some other modduels like Hair and Sketch & Toon. If you were ever frustrated with Sasquatch, then there's an answer to your prayers.

Modeling in C4D is surely workable once you get used to it, but I find it imprecise and the selection tools are clunky, so I don't use it much. Tools like sew, merge, bevel are awkward to use and I find it hard to get the results I want. I think LW (in combo with LWCAD and some Pictrix tools) can easily beat that or if you - like me - may also have modo, do your stuff there.

Mylenium

ThirdEye

10-13-2006, 08:53 AM

and various AO shaders in LW.

he can use AO in C4D if he wants to use AO.

Modeling in C4D is surely workable once you get used to it, but I find it imprecise and the selection tools are clunky, so I don't use it much. Tools like sew, merge, bevel are awkward to use and I find it hard to get the results I want. I think LW (in combo with LWCAD and some Pictrix tools) can easily beat that or if you - like me - may also have modo, do your stuff there.

I strongly disagree there, i love C4D at poly modeling. There are a few tools missing, like Extrude Along Spline or Hinge From Edge, but the rest is there and working.

Mylenium

10-13-2006, 09:04 AM

he can use AO in C4D if he wants to use AO.

Sure you can, but you do not have much choice in shaders, I believe. For LW there are something like 8 or 9 different AO shaders alone, from the old GMIL to SGAmbient Occlusion to IFW's flavor and lastly the built-in method in the new node shaders. I haven't done much searching, but I believe AR's AO and FR's AO are the only ones for C4D, so compared to LW it pales.

I strongly disagree there, i love C4D at poly modeling. There are a few tools missing, like Extrude Along Spline or Hinge From Edge, but the rest is there and working.

I didn't say that it doesn't work, but it could be improved quite a bit from my POV. It's nowhere near as precise and intuitive as in modo and especially mesh cleanup (to which my gripes with the selection tools, sew and merge functions mainly boil down) is a pain from where I sit. Both LW and modo handle that much, much better.

Mylenium

TYROT

10-13-2006, 09:11 AM

dear C4D clan

thank you so much for honest recommendation and critics. I have learned alot. I have just downloaded the demo and gave a test ride. Still trying to look around... I think it is better to keep both applications side by side. So i may go with Mylenium's idea.

But what i see from MAXON's side, Archviz renderings are not so Top Notch. But C4D intergration with other Cad programs pretty impressive.

LWO LWS import just impressive. I didnt know and i wouldnt guess. Keyframing is easy and UI is pretty well organized. Feels like After Effects. And yes metarial editor is pretty straight forward, easy to understand.

If there is a still problem with GI renderings that can be problematic. But i believe they will come up with something on that issue. MAXON focused on 3D. That s comforting.

Again thank you for all your posts.

BEST

ThirdEye

10-13-2006, 09:20 AM

Sure you can, but you do not have much choice in shaders, I believe. For LW there are something like 8 or 9 different AO shaders alone, from the old GMIL to SGAmbient Occlusion to IFW's flavor and lastly the built-in method in the new node shaders. I haven't done much searching, but I believe AR's AO and FR's AO are the only ones for C4D, so compared to LW it pales.

I wonder why one should use 9 different AO shaders if the inbuilt one just works. Plus no, choice's not just limited to C4D's and fR's. I don't know if they've been already updated to r10 but i remember at least 3 other AO shaders made by C4D users.

Mylenium

10-13-2006, 09:41 AM

I wonder why one should use 9 different AO shaders if the inbuilt one just works.

Well, because you can pick the one that's most suitable for the task at hand. gMIL is relatively fast, but only figures in two lights. SG Ambient Occlusion is precise, but slow. EE GRit is fast, but noisy and can produce artifacts on n-gons. The built-in one is calculating in object space, so it requires different adjustments for each surface/ object. However, since it's just a node, it can as wel lbe used to fake luminous radiosity and a few other things without much work. From those few examples you see taht there are many reasons pro or against a given shader depending on the situation.

Plus no, choice's not just limited to C4D's and fR's. I don't know if they've been already updated to r10 but i remember at least 3 other AO shaders made by C4D users.

Good to know.

Mylenium

ThirdEye

10-13-2006, 10:14 AM

...From those few examples you see taht there are many reasons pro or against a given shader depending on the situation.

Never had any of these problems with the inbuilt AO shader of C4D, as i said it just works, you don't have to waste time with workarounds.

helluvapixel

10-13-2006, 12:51 PM

But what i see from MAXON's side, Archviz renderings are not so Top Notch.

Sorry? You must be joking? I don't know where you're looking because I have seen tremendous Archviz done with C4D. Perhaps.... you are saying the road to get there isn't great with C4D, and I'd agree that using the radiosity side of C4D is slow but one thing is for certain and that is the fact that the QUALITY is not compromised.

The problem with LW and this has been true from day one is that it is all about work arounds. Sure, it's all about the 'getting the job done' but wouldn't you want to do it with a tool that is solid and accurate from the word go? All the AO shaders you mentioned are hacks and flaws so how can you do accurate lighting studies with haxxor shaders?

The other problem I have with LW is the render speed. Yes it is fast until you have to do something real. A few weeks back I was doing a lightbulb, nothing serious and sure enough LW blasted through it with flying colours with the reflection maps, and transparency..... UNTIL I had to use the antialiasing. I tried to get the AA artifacts out of the filament with LW and I gave up after something like a 24 pass PLD. I opened C4D set it to AA best, DONE.

So, know your tool and where it comes from. Know where it is starting from. LW is about shortcuts and getting something to look nice, and from my POV C4D is about getting something to look nice accurately. Therefore, knowing that you have to then use each to their strengths.

Would I use LW for fancy sexy product renderings... sure.... would I use it for accuracy in proving scientific lighting studies.. not a chance.

helluvapixel

10-13-2006, 12:53 PM

Never had any of these problems with the inbuilt AO shader of C4D, as i said it just works, you don't have to waste time with workarounds.

And it helps to know how it works. I think the biggest problem is the default settings are far too high and people complain that it is slow. Well, yeah cuz it's defaulted to a great accuracy. However, even reduced it isn't the fastest horse because comparably with fR I can easily match the accuracy with a lot less time.

ThirdEye

10-13-2006, 01:38 PM

And it helps to know how it works. I think the biggest problem is the default settings are far too high and people complain that it is slow. Well, yeah cuz it's defaulted to a great accuracy. However, even reduced it isn't the fastest horse because comparably with fR I can easily match the accuracy with a lot less time.

I don't have any experience with fR but i remember i tested our AO shader against a Mental Ray one when we were betaing it last year, the rendertimes were more or less the same, slightly in favour of C4D in some cases. As i said i haven't tried AO in fR nor in V-Ray.

helluvapixel

10-13-2006, 01:39 PM

I don't have any experience with fR but i remember i tested our AO shader against a Mental Ray one when we were betaing it last year, the rendertimes were more or less the same, slightly in favour of C4D in some cases. As i said i haven't tried AO in fR nor in V-Ray.

Good to know, what settings are you using for your AO and also are you applying it per object or scene AO?

ThirdEye

10-13-2006, 01:49 PM

Good to know, what settings are you using for your AO and also are you applying it per object or scene AO?

It totally depends on the scene, but i almost always use it as a shader since i can control exactly WHERE it's gonna end. For example i can mix it with a texture in the environment channel so i get less environment reflections in darker areas. Or i can use it to get fake shadows where i need them, usually contact shadows. In some other cases i've used it for human heads as either a guide for texture painting or as a layer for the textures themselves. Blending modes here are the key.
When it comes to settings again it depends on what i'm using it for. Sometimes you use it for dirting your textures and you can get away with ultragrainy settings, sometimes you need it to "illuminate" your scene and you have to go for finer settings. Usually i begin from a starting point of 50% accuracy, 8 min samples and 80 max samples. The accuracy setting works as a balance between min and max, while i try to keep the min/max samples ratio to 1-1,5/10. The same goes for GI settings, i usually go for the same balance and increase the accuracy only when needed.

helluvapixel

10-13-2006, 01:54 PM

Usually i begin from a starting point of 50% accuracy, 8 min samples and 80 max samples. The accuracy setting works as a balance between min and max, while i try to keep the min/max samples ratio to 1-1,5/10. The same goes for GI settings, i usually go for the same balance and increase the accuracy only when needed.

Funny, because I rarely go over 60% accuracy, and your max samples are higher than what I've been using. But again, it REALLY depends on what you're doing. I've gone so far as to simply do a blur operation on the AO map to get a softened 'shading' effect for the dark areas simply to cheat on time.

Thanks for sharing, I wanted people to see the options since C4D can accommodate most situations.

PaZ

12-24-2006, 12:58 AM

Per-Anders

12-24-2006, 01:11 AM

hi guys,

i'm an old-date Lw user and i'm looking at Cinema for a long time, testing demos and so on.
Cinema gui looks nice and it has a flexible architecture, while Lw has really to catch up from its discontinued development.
Mograph is impressive and i really like multipass tools; displacement looks much better than current LW's one too.
Anyway when it come to arch viz - which is what i do for living for about 15 years - i can agree about all Hub and LW's architecture issues; but if you put together pictrix's tools, LWcad, Fprime and Kray, even if this toolset is not integrated together as well as Cinema tools are, you have modeling and rendering power which cannot be matched by Cinema, at least not yet. Obviously i'm relying totally on external engines for GI, LW's implementation is way too old and slow.
I've not investigated in depth the whole Cinema's 3rd part world anyway, so i can miss something.

bye
Paolo

Holy thread resurrection batman. You might wanna check the dates of the last post in some of these thread (or sort your forums by last post) :).

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you though on both counts though, and add that the thing about LW is that everything has to be a workaround or a plugin, when you could spend time using C4D or XSI and just go right out of the box; though of course to be fair that doesn't take into account that you must learn and know how to use the applications in order to "go right out of the box", which is of course added time, so at the end of the day just use the tools you're happiest using and don't worry too much what other people use, if you're getting the job done on time and to standard then the client doesn't give a **** what you use :)

PaZ

12-24-2006, 12:26 PM

Lol you're true, i was just roaming in Cinema's forum and i didnt look at date.
And yes i agree, i just use what i'm more comfortable in; let me add, i'm very disposeable to change or add tools, but until now i couldnt see any real advantage in stepping to Cinema.
Less workarounds or plugins, once i know how to move into this peculiar workflow, is not enough. Cinema looks sure more comfortable and consistent, but doesnt offer something i really miss in LW. I'd miss Fprime instead, i wonder how many have really worked professionally in Fprime and dont miss it in Cinema.
Something which caught my attention is XSI, which seems to offer a real edge over every other software; given the market i work in, precision tools like LWcad (which is growing fast into a full advanced Cad toolset) and pictrix's are still missing and Fprime is still enough to stick with LW even in front of the mighty MentalRay.
Anyway XSI is 500, Maxon must consider this and be honest regarding it's relative position. Modo is becoming another very serious contendant, let's wait they add animation, it's scheduled very soon... it' now 600 for sidegrade, and it's rendering engines runs in circles around Maxon's AR2.
I'd (i'll) consider Cinema base+AR at 600, or imho it's way out of market.
Anyway Cinema R10 has surprised me, it's a great step ahead and i really enjoy new Gui. Definitely keeping an eye on it... and on the price ;)

Bye
Paolo

ThirdEye

12-24-2006, 12:52 PM

Anyway XSI is 500, Maxon must consider this and be honest regarding it's relative position. Modo is becoming another very serious contendant, let's wait they add animation, it's scheduled very soon... it' now 600 for sidegrade, and it's rendering engines runs in circles around Maxon's AR2.
I'd (i'll) consider Cinema base+AR at 600, or imho it's way out of market.
Anyway Cinema R10 has surprised me, it's a great step ahead and i really enjoy new Gui. Definitely keeping an eye on it... and on the price ;)

XSI is 500 but doesn't have Bodypaint3D, unlike the core version of C4D. Modo doesn't even have animation, particles and so on and it costs more than C4D, go figure. Plus its rendering engine doesn't run anywhere without inclusion/exclusion lists for lights and raytracing effects or without shadow maps.

PaZ

12-24-2006, 01:18 PM

XSI is 500 but doesn't have Bodypaint3D, unlike the core version of C4D. Modo doesn't even have animation, particles and so on and it costs more than C4D, go figure. Plus its rendering engine doesn't run anywhere without inclusion/exclusion lists for lights and raytracing effects or without shadow maps.

Sure, maybe i wasnt enough precise at this regard: i'm talking about how useful a soft can be in Viz pipeline given the fact i work mainly in archviz area. Bodypaint can have its usage there but sure it's more targeted to organic stuff, so i didnt consider it so much. Anyway XSI has the best integration of MR on the market and other unique technologies which are really an edge over any software.
I agree more on Modo; even if animation usage is limited in Viz market (timeline and keyframing is usually enough) it is very close and promises to be something advanced. Inclusion/excusion - along with many other Modo's engine limitations - are classic "young tool" issues to be adressed very soon, but overall Modo's engine and surfacing system look more promising. BTW i didnt work heavily on either engine, but i think i tested them enought to get a rough, personal idea. I can be proven wrong btw.
Even limiting observtion to XSI alone, offering Cinema base (which does a little) + AR at something like 1100 (considering sidegrade discount) puts imho Cinema out of market, at least in the perspective of many pros which alread uses other tools.
These are times for multisoftware pipelines, pros using just one are less and less. I know quite a lot of viz pros which dont care about Cinema because of its price/power ratio.
It can be a good main tool because it features a good quality over the whole package; as side tool, it should cut some edges (i.e. it should be the "best option" for something) to justify its cost in an already exhistent pipeline. And this simply does not happen on anything regarding Viz. Overall very good, but not excellent on any front.
Hope Maxon understands this and provides a more friendly pricing politic - btw this is not a bash, i'm just speaking form an interested-to-Cinema pov.
If this request sounds new, remember that people which dont care about Cinema mostly dont write here, i just reported a diffuse feeling i know about.

bye
Paolo

ThirdEye

12-24-2006, 01:54 PM

Anyway XSI has the best integration of MR on the market and other unique technologies which are really an edge over any software.

It depends. MR isn't that widespread in the architectural viz world, engines like Vray or fR or even Maxwell and the old Lightscape engine are usually considered more by architectural artists, especially considering MR's steep learning curve.
About the techs that are an edge over any software i'd say that for any of these apps: Maya, C4D, XSI, HDN. They all offer something unique, for example Live, Fluids and PaintFX in Maya, or S&T, MoGraph and BP3D in C4D, or the Gigapoly core and the FX Tree in XSI, or Houdini's procedural approach to the scene, or its particle system. To each his own.

PaZ

12-26-2006, 08:13 PM

Hi,

It depends. MR isn't that widespread in the architectural viz world, engines like Vray or fR or even Maxwell and the old Lightscape engine are usually considered more by architectural artists, especially considering MR's steep learning curve.

Sure, this is the diffused thinking about MR, but maybe you know things are changing fast on this front. Since Discreet put it into Max, some efforts toward Viz have been done and recently released shaders makes things much better in interior GI; i agree on learning curve but even here latest releases have done steps ahead. Anyway MR issue was mostly to talk about native engines. As you know XSI is getting Vray soon, so 3rd part engines are another issue... the real lack in XSI are precision tools.

About the techs that are an edge over any software i'd say that for any of these apps: Maya, C4D, XSI, HDN. They all offer something unique, for example Live, Fluids and PaintFX in Maya, or S&T, MoGraph and BP3D in C4D, or the Gigapoly core and the FX Tree in XSI, or Houdini's procedural approach to the scene, or its particle system. To each his own.

(and LW has the best interactive engine on the market too ;))
Anyway, since i'm speaking precisely of Viz area, probably you'll agree on the fact that Cinema's cutting edges are not so interesting for Viz artists, while MEL or Gigapolygon can be more useful since they are more "universal" features which can be useful in every field.
Averagely this is Cinema for Lightwave Viz users.
Btw, this pov changes as soon as one gets motion graphics stuff to do.

Bye
Paolo