Cinema 4D vs Modo

Become a member of the CGSociety

Connect, Share, and Learn with our Large Growing CG Art Community. It's Free!

THREAD CLOSED
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  03 March 2013
Post

Originally Posted by AntimatterVFX: I use a huge list VFX software that I could place in my Sig. I can remove my sig if that makes you feel better about my critique C4D?


no no, this isnt what i meant. i was just wondering.
i myself only know whodini users that dont work with cinema cuz they just dont need it any more since they moved to effects or similar, more VFX stuff.
it΄s all good, mate. i was just interested...like i said.
__________________
insekt8.de
 
  03 March 2013
Originally Posted by AdamT: I agree, and have always thought that this was something that should be left to specialist applications. IMO if someone is interested in sculpting he or she will invest in ZBrush, which honestly is miles more advanced than R14's system. People who aren't that into it probably won't even delve into Cinema's system. Most of the C4D folks I work with do only the most rudimentary modeling. They buy assets or hire someone like me to create them. If I get something that calls for sculpting I use ZBrush.


I'm often doing Archiviz these days, and i can assure you that having a tool that allows me to quickly sculpt organic forms inside CINEMA is a gosend. Stones, ruins, pillows, sheets... Sculpting isn't just for monsters and creatures, you know...
 
  03 March 2013
Originally Posted by imashination: I really dont get why you keep bringing up pyro and claim it costs you loads of money? Why would dropping an existing feature save you money? You realise Maxon dont pay anyone any royalties for it right? they own the code outright. Having pyrocluster in c4d costs you nothing.


I kind of doubt Pyro is a freebie, though it is as hard for me to prove as it is for Maxon to prove it's free.

For the first-time-buyer, I don't think Pyro&co. ships as a free bonus. No, it has a price based on something that adds the total lump sum. Same with updates, I pay for all the bells and whistles whether they're updated or not. If I skip a release, as it is going to happen with R14, I pay higher price to update to R15. I've no idea what the price is based on but I'm pretty sure they charge me from the exact same code I already paid for several versions ago.
__________________
Crazy people make better CG
 
  03 March 2013
Maybe it would be good idea to have a look at cafe 14 review to see all the new features in R14, since this topic seems to imply that only sculpting was done for R14.
Somehow, completely new snapping, workplane&guides, new sampler, radiosity maps, aerodynamics, camera calibration, motion camera, Alembic support, new shaders and numerous other features are not mentioned

http://www.cafedownloads.com/reviews/r14/
__________________


Last edited by hsrdelic : 03 March 2013 at 12:13 PM.
 
  03 March 2013
To be fair, we as users are not paying for the code when we purchase a software license. More like paying for the right to install and use the software.

And when we pay for upgrades/MSA, our money goes towards the continued development and maintenance of the product, which itself may or may not have been completely renewed with each release.

If the product no longer serves its purpose, or our needs have outgrown what the software can do, then it's time to move on and put our money elsewhere.

If we find that the amount of money we pay isn't fair in comparison to what some other company is charging then we are also free to move to a competitive product.

Seriously, as buyers, it's our money that speaks the loudest.


Originally Posted by Hilt: I've no idea what the price is based on but I'm pretty sure they charge me from the exact same code I already paid for several versions ago.
__________________
"...if you have faith as small as a mustard seed... Nothing will be impossible for you."
 
  03 March 2013
Originally Posted by tapaul:
As long as you all keep paying for the same regergited 'old sh*t' and facelifts, don't be suprised when Maxon give it to you again next year, whiped over with a wet cloth, whilst spoon feeding you whatever they see fit.They have got you by the balls with the MSA and they know it.
.



sad but true.
it is the same bad game which autodesk and nextlimit are playing with their customers.
 
  03 March 2013
Originally Posted by ThirdEye: So basically if you were a Modo user you'd complain Modo 101 wasn't on par with Maya? Or if MAXON wanted to introduce say an internal compositor you'd expect it to be on par with Nuke?


You seem to complete miss the point. How good or bad C4D's sculpting is doesn't even matter. What matters is that people won't drop their dedicated sculpting tools to replace it with Maxon's solution. It's simple as that. ZBrush and Mudbox are the industry standards and that isn't going to change.

I rather switch application to do sculpting and bring it back in when done. Nobody really seems to understand why Maxon put time and money into developing another feature that frankly most don't care about as the market of sculpting apps is/was already saturated.

To get back on topic. Modo has surpassed C4D in many areas and continues to grow and many have their eyes on it due to lower pricing and ever growing feature list. I just hope Luxology doesn't make the same mistake like some others and bloat the app with BS. I'd like to see refinement of existing features (which they have done in 701 as well). So currently I see that Luxology is doing the right thing. Can't say Maxon is doing much of the same.
 
  03 March 2013
I must admit that what you say doesn't make sense to me?
Just because sculpting in Cinema is not appealing to you that doesn't mean it is the same for everyone else. For comparison, I never saw people using external render engines (Vray, Maxwell etc) complaining about how XMB doesn't make any sense since the market is saturated with render engines...

In fact, there are so many people (archviz, product design etc.) that are happy because they don't have to leave the comfort of the application they know and purchase a dedicated sculpting application, along with the fact of 100% compatibility with everything else in Cinema.
__________________


Last edited by hsrdelic : 03 March 2013 at 01:04 PM.
 
  03 March 2013
Originally Posted by hsrdelic: I must admit that what you say doesn't make sense to me?
Just because sculpting in Cinema is not appealing to you that doesn't mean it is the same for everyone else. For comparison, I never saw people using external render engines (Vray, Maxwell etc) complaining about how XMB doesn't make any sense since the market is saturated with render engines...

In fact, there are so many people (archviz, product design etc.) that are happy because they don't have to leave the comfort of the application they know and purchase a dedicated sculpting application, along with the fact of 100% compatibility with everything else in Cinema.


It doesn't make sense from a business perspective. If you fail to see that then I can't help you. Time and money would have been spend far better by updating existing features. Maxon has a lot of zombies in the closet (Bodypaint, TP, etc). Secondly, if you want to compete with others in the "sculpting" area you better come up with something more than just "basic". As it stands, sculpting in C4D is very basic. So does this help to clear up questions or confusion?
 
  03 March 2013
Originally Posted by ThirdEye: Are you kidding, Brian? How many sculpting apps out there were so impressive at their v1.0? ?


At the moment the texture baking of Cinema Sculpting is very buggy if you use tangent space, there are many artefacts. There is no bugfix after 6 month, so I would say sculpting is not impressive!

CU

Ansgar
__________________
http://www.rahmacher-media.de
Cinema4D Tutorials: http://www.rahmacher-media.de/cinema.html
 
  03 March 2013
Originally Posted by Firebeard: It doesn't make sense from a business perspective. If you fail to see that then I can't help you. Time and money would have been spend far better by updating existing features. Maxon has a lot of zombies in the closet (Bodypaint, TP, etc). Secondly, if you want to compete with others in the "sculpting" area you better come up with something more than just "basic". As it stands, sculpting in C4D is very basic. So does this help to clear up questions or confusion?


No, it doesn't. As i've already said in my previous post i'm glad (and i'm sure many others would agree) to have a sculpting solution inside the app. Doing what i'm doing in a third party app would be a) more time consuming as i'd have to leave the main app i'm working with and b) more expensive since i'd have to buy a third party app that i frankly don't need. Again: not everyone needs to handle the gazillion polys Zbrush handles. MAXON doesn't want and can't compete with an unique app like Zbrush, they wanted to give people the possibility to sculpt objects without leaving CINEMA, and i'm glad they did.
 
  03 March 2013
Originally Posted by Firebeard: It doesn't make sense from a business perspective. If you fail to see that then I can't help you. Time and money would have been spend far better by updating existing features. Maxon has a lot of zombies in the closet (Bodypaint, TP, etc). Secondly, if you want to compete with others in the "sculpting" area you better come up with something more than just "basic". As it stands, sculpting in C4D is very basic. So does this help to clear up questions or confusion?


Well said Firebeard you are bang on target.

There were bigger issues to be addressed than a half baked sculpting solution. TP/Xpresso should've been way above sculpting in priorities. There were loads of little gimmicks in R14 that were held up as headline features like Aerodynamics. Makes for a great GSG tutorial but how much real world usage?

C4D is synonymous with Mograph so what haven't we seen any real development in that regard in terms of TP/Xpresso ability to work with massive particle counts and massive object numbers. Solo is your C4D friend.

What happens if Modo 801 brings a comparable or better Mograph toolset? It'll only take a few notable Vimeo clips and a few notable freelancers to switch and for a lot of the sheep to follow. Currently Mograph is propping up an application that is ageing in all areas and if that Mograph competitive advantage is taken away you're left with an application that looks past its best.
 
  03 March 2013
Originally Posted by Shape3D: At the moment the texture baking of Cinema Sculpting is very buggy if you use tangent space, there are many artefacts. There is no bugfix after 6 month, so I would say sculpting is not impressive!

CU

Ansgar


I'm not a sculptor, though i have mudbox by way of maya, so i'd consider my sculpting needs to be minimal and most likely in line with the broad userbase. Yes, it is nice to have sculpting in app with a familiar interface, but it's no good to me if the sculpt tools can't properly bake normal maps. Mudbox crashes quite a bit, but at least I can follow thru with the workflow. As of R14, C4D sculpting is DOA.

So like a few others here, i'm left wondering as well if those development dollars wouldn't have been better spent refining other languishing aspects of the app. At the very least, follow thru and polish up the buggy features that were used as selling points on release.
__________________
••••••••••••••••••••••••

demafleez.com | twitter
 
  03 March 2013
Originally Posted by AntimatterVFX: Well said Firebeard you are bang on target.

There were bigger issues to be addressed than a half baked sculpting solution. TP/Xpresso should've been way above sculpting in priorities. There were loads of little gimmicks in R14 that were held up as headline features like Aerodynamics. Makes for a great GSG tutorial but how much real world usage?


and dont forget the lousy cachemanagement. it is bizarr that we still have to write all simulationdata into the projektfile.
 
  03 March 2013
Originally Posted by ThirdEye: So basically if you were a Modo user you'd complain Modo 101 wasn't on par with Maya? Or if MAXON wanted to introduce say an internal compositor you'd expect it to be on par with Nuke?


Well, maybe part of my pessimism about sculpting is that I don't really believe that when we get a 'v1' of something in Cinema that we will then see steady development on that same feature in subsequent versions. Historically I don't think that's ever been the case. From my point of view it seems that for each release we get one or two major areas worked on while others gather dust. We rarely seem to see steady development in all areas from version to version. See TP, Mograph, Cloth, Hair, Bodypaint etc for example.

Another user here mentioned integrating the dynamics systems for example, which has obvious benefits. But I'm pretty sure that cloth, TP, Hair and dynamics are all using completely different engines (all were added several years apart for one thing) and the likelihood of them being unified seems very remote to me.

[Edit - the one thing that does seem to get updated every version is the bloody UI, and for me that's just a nuisance, I get fed up playing 'which menu is it in now?' for each new release.

Cheers,
Brian

Last edited by Horganovski : 03 March 2013 at 02:10 PM.
 
Thread Closed share thread



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 01:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.