Why use C4D in a MAX / Maya world?

Become a member of the CGSociety

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

REPLY TO THREAD
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 10 October 2015   #46
Originally Posted by muckymouse: It doesn't really matter how it works programattically if it's not presented in a clear way. The logic is in line with how deformer/expression priority is presented to the user in C4D so it makes perfect sense.


Well that was my point - as a rigger when I'm creating corrective morphs I would think to myself 'ok I need these to calculate before the skin deformer', because I need the skin deformer to deform the morphed shape of the mesh, not the other way around. So for me calling it 'post deformers' is actually confusing, it doesn't seem sensible to me!

I remember in fact making a note of this when rigging in C4D after a break from it for a while as I wanted to remember that it's not intuitive to what I expect, so I took a screen cap of the setting with a note 'remember that this needs to be enabled for correctives to work'.
So in my opinion the fact that I had to do that instead of just assuming I could use an option that seems logical and represents the actual calculation order is actually a failure to be clear.

It's a bit like that 'Relative or Absolute?' option that pops up when you create morphs to begin with, that was like that for several versions until Maxon added the '(yes/no)' qualification to it.. to make it more clear.. or the reversed colours for the rotation curves (H and P) in the F-Curve editor, another example where C4D was not clear, that is finally fixed in R17.

I guess on one level if you work exclusively in one package you get used to these kinds of things to the point that you don't really notice them, but if you move between different packages they can trip you up. I'm so used to associating the colour red with translate and rotate X (or P in C4D) that it still trips me up in C4D every time I start polishing curves. Looking forward to switching to R17 and not having to deal with that, the current studio I'm working for are still using R16 though so I'm stuck with it for a while longer

[Edit- Dans images below illustrate very clearly what I'm trying to say - the corrective morphs should effect the default (T pose/A pose etc) shape of the mesh, not the deformed one, otherwise you would get different results in every pose of the rig making them useless.

Cheers,
Brian

Last edited by Horganovski : 10 October 2015 at 08:51 PM.
 
Old 10 October 2015   #47
Howdy,
Originally Posted by muckymouse: It doesn't really matter how it works programattically if it's not presented in a clear way. The logic is in line with how deformer/expression priority is presented to the user in C4D so it makes perfect sense.

Well, there may be a lot more to take into consideration (programattically) than you may realize.

Evaluating corrective morphs before skinning seems more logical to me because:

Having a corrective morph for the knee evaluated after the skinning in this pose:


... may not be the same as having it evaluated after the skinning in this pose:


Having the corrective morph evaluated before the skinning would work in both poses because the skinning would deform the morph along with the mesh.

Adios,
Cactus Dan
__________________
It doesn't matter what people say about you, just as long as they're talking about you.

cactus3d.com, cactus3d-Plugins, CD Character Plugins forum

Last edited by Cactus Dan : 10 October 2015 at 08:38 PM.
 
Old 10 October 2015   #48
Originally Posted by Cactus Dan: Howdy,

Well, there may be a lot more to take into consideration (programattically) than you may realize.

Evaluating corrective morphs before skinning seems more logical to me because:

Having a corrective morph for the knee evaluated after the skinning in this pose:


... may not be the same as having it evaluated after the skinning in this pose:


Having the corrective morph evaluated before the skinning would work in both poses because the skinning would deform the morph along with the mesh.

Adios,
Cactus Dan


Here's our miscommunication:
Under the hood APPLICATION of the pose vs EDITING.

The 'Post Deformers' checkbox allows you to EDIT the pose, post deformers. That is the logic they are following.

PoseMorph (points) is always APPLIED pre-deformers AFAIK. Otherwise it would be quite useless as you noted above.
 
Old 10 October 2015   #49
Howdy,
Originally Posted by muckymouse: Here's our miscommunication:
Under the hood APPLICATION of the pose vs EDITING.

The 'Post Deformers' checkbox allows you to EDIT the pose, post deformers. That is the logic they are following.

PoseMorph (points) is always APPLIED pre-deformers AFAIK. Otherwise it would be quite useless as you noted above.

Oh sorry, I thought we were basing our conversation on this post:
Originally Posted by Emmanuel: I really dont know, Brian, the term *corrective* suggests to me that it happens to correct something that came before it, so in my logic, a corrective morph always takes place to correct an unwanted deformation...afterwards.


Adios,
Cactus Dan
__________________
It doesn't matter what people say about you, just as long as they're talking about you.

cactus3d.com, cactus3d-Plugins, CD Character Plugins forum
 
Old 10 October 2015   #50
Originally Posted by Cactus Dan: Howdy,

Oh sorry, I thought we were basing our conversation on this post:


Adios,
Cactus Dan


Yeah, so, I opened C4D and looked at it. It appears the 'Post Deformation' checkbox does change the way posemorph is applied so I was wrong.

Basically they are using the logic I described in my last post - We are editing/applying the pose 'post deformer'. It still makes sense to me.
 
Old 10 October 2015   #51
Originally Posted by muckymouse: Yeah, so, I opened C4D and looked at it. It appears the 'Post Deformation' checkbox does change the way posemorph is applied so I was wrong..


Yes as far as I can see they only work as correctives when you enable the Post Deformation option.. I get what you say about it referring to editing rather than calculating but it still seems confusing terminology to me.

Having said that, after having this much discussion about it here I'm pretty sure now I'll always remember from now on

Cheers,
Brian
 
Old 10 October 2015   #52
Originally Posted by Horganovski:
I would argue that in some areas, yes it is. Say for example modelling commands - in C4D if you apply a bevel to a mesh and then do some other tasks to it you can't later go back and change the bevel settings. In Maya if you haven't deleted the History on the object you can, you can even animate the settings if needed.


That in Maya never worked, if you have two or more operations after the bevel (in this case) and you try to edit something, most likely the operations after will find a different vertex order and doesn't know what to do, making the model look weird or breaking it.

On the other hand the Bevel Deformer in Cinema 4D doesn't support multiple bevels, so if you edit your mesh with a bevel, you can't add another on top of it.

So, yeah, they are not Houdini in this case.
__________________
Officina Meccanica
 
Old 10 October 2015   #53
Originally Posted by Horganovski: Yes as far as I can see they only work as correctives when you enable the Post Deformation option.. I get what you say about it referring to editing rather than calculating but it still seems confusing terminology to me.

Having said that, after having this much discussion about it here I'm pretty sure now I'll always remember from now on

Cheers,
Brian


 
Old 10 October 2015   #54
Originally Posted by cgbeige: Both are closer for 3D viewport display now that C4D sped theirs up so significantly, although Maya's is more accurate.



What am I missing here? Has MAXON recently released a patch or has Apple updated its GL / driver performance in 10.11?

C4D's viewport (relative to the excellent high poly, interactive performance now available in Maya and Modo's viewports) has been almost universally panned the last couple years and heavily so in recent months. Probably more so Mac users than PC users but either way, the consensus seems to be Maya and Modo now have much more efficient viewports than C4D.

Curious what context you were using with that statement.
 
Old 10 October 2015   #55
Originally Posted by Blinny: What am I missing here? Has MAXON recently released a patch or has Apple updated its GL / driver performance in 10.11?

C4D's viewport (relative to the excellent high poly, interactive performance now available in Maya and Modo's viewports) has been almost universally panned the last couple years and heavily so in recent months. Probably more so Mac users than PC users but either way, the consensus seems to be Maya and Modo now have much more efficient viewports than C4D.

Curious what context you were using with that statement.



At Least on a Mac Pro 2013 with Dual D700 C4D is better with High Poly counts than Modo and Maya here.
__________________
____
Cinema 4D Studio MSA, Zbrush, CS6, 3DCoat, Moi
Twitter: @holgerbiebrach
www.c4dStuff.com

HB_ModellingBundle
 
Old 10 October 2015   #56
Originally Posted by Blinny: What am I missing here? Has MAXON recently released a patch or has Apple updated its GL / driver performance in 10.11?

C4D's viewport (relative to the excellent high poly, interactive performance now available in Maya and Modo's viewports) has been almost universally panned the last couple years and heavily so in recent months. Probably more so Mac users than PC users but either way, the consensus seems to be Maya and Modo now have much more efficient viewports than C4D.

Curious what context you were using with that statement.


C4D performs very well with small numbers of high-poly objects compared to those other programs; where it falls down is with large numbers of objects. For instance, I can very happily and interactively orbit a 54 million poly mesh in C4D at 25+ fps on a 5K iMac. I can't even import that OBJ file into Maya; it freezes mid-import.

On the other hand, C4D will bog horribly with thousands of objects, even if the aggregate poly count is relatively minimal.

So, the issue is not with the speed of C4D's viewport, per se, but with its object handing, and how that interacts with the display code.
 
Old 10 October 2015   #57
Quote: object handing


Same happens with lots of keyframes and complex rigs, when C4D has to go through all the Object Manager, tags, expressions etc...

So it's clearly an OM issue : the more elements it has to go through, the more it struggles.
 
Old 10 October 2015   #58
Cinema 4D-big problem

Cinema 4D is a big problem in scenes with lots of objects.
A view can be optimized and to show him a small number of clones. But when it comes to rendering, you will understand that this software is not suitable for the really serious work - VFX, architecture, etc.
Maxon many years ignoring the requests of users. It is increasingly affect their income - because Modo, Blender, 3D Max, Maya are able to render billions.

http://itmages.ru/image/view/3144621/93fb9c3b
 
Old 10 October 2015   #59
Funny thing is that was yesterday on a Max forum and users were complaining about how slow the viewport is when using a few thousand objects...
And C4d is not able to do archiviz??? can you show us some scenes that can be done in Max and not in C4d please? I'm curious.
__________________
www.3drenderandbeyond.com
www.3dtutorialandbeyond.com
www.facebook.com/3drenderandbeyond
 
Old 10 October 2015   #60
Quote: But when it comes to rendering, you will understand that this software is not suitable for the really serious work - VFX, architecture, etc. [...] Modo, Blender, 3D Max, Maya are able to render billions.


C4D isn't perfect by a long shot, but this is ludicrous. I don't know what you're doing wrong, but I just replicated you scene and with my modest machine, I can render 200 000 lowpoly trees like this in 15 seconds!

Viewport perf is bad with the cloner, but using the hair system and instances I fly around the 200K trees in real time in the viewport.

Bumping it up to 2 000 000 trees with the hair system, I can still fly around at about 5 FPS. Exporting/preparing/rendering takes about 6 minutes.

This may not be Clarisse, but c'mon.
 
reply 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 03:07 PM.


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