Announcing Cinema 4D Release 19

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
  07 July 2017
Originally Posted by RickBarrett: Hey Eric,

I'm not an expert in PBR, but from what I understand it's basically a loose set of concepts which can be implemented in different ways. We're implementing a workflow that's based on the theory of PBR. The PBR preset creates two layers - a diffuse layer and a reflection layer (which by default has 30% roughness and a PET fresnel).

The Reflectance channel gives lots of flexibility to create multi-layered PBR materials that ARE energy conservative, but ProRender, the Viewport and the PBR workflow in general will continue to evolve.

With R19 the emphasis was to make it easier for users to transition to PBR workflows, but to keep in place the existing material system and color-channel workflow so users weren't forced to immediately make a change.

Hi Rick, thanks for your kind answer.

So I'm not a shader expert either, but I'm a user of many "PBR" softwares  and I was thinking we'd get the now "industry standard" disney's principled brdf implementation that almost everyone else is using (Substance, Unreal, Unity, Marmoset, Renderman, Pixelberg, Quixel, 3D Coat, Element 3D, Redshift, Clarisse,Iclone, the list goes on...) when talking about PBR and specifically the metallic/rough workflow which is the most intuitive and most widespread.

I thought I'd be able to work on my model geometry in C4D, and seamlessly paint it either in bodypaint OR substance painter, or maybe add a substance or quixel scan directly in their own albedo/Rough/metal slots without having to jump through complicated hoops (which we have to do at the moment and which doesn't seem to change in R19). I thought it would be made to "play nice with others".

I thought I could export or roundtrip my C4D maps and models straight to Unity, Unreal, Element 3D etc...

I though the whole "reflectance shoehorned into the old legacy system" would be a thing of the past with a clean new PBR ubershader layout.

I mean, we STILL have the old system for compatibility and transition, why not make a new and better one for the future ? Having both mixed is only going to create confusion imho..

Given how the rest of the program works, it's the least "C4D-like" element of the whole: It's not simple, it's not streamlined, it's prone to human errors and it's not "playing nice with others".

Let's reflect on this principles set by Disney (not the worst example to follow) for their "PBR principled shaders" :

Quote: These were the principles that we decided to follow when implementing our model:
1. Intuitive rather than physical parameters should be used.
2. There should be as few parameters as possible.
3. Parameters should be zero to one over their plausible range.
4. Parameters should be allowed to be pushed beyond their plausible range where it makes sense.
5. All combinations of parameters should be as robust and plausible as possible.

We thoroughly debated the addition of each parameter. In the end we ended up with 1 color
parameter and 10 scalar parameters described in the following section. [...]


So basically, based on this paper, C4D is failing in my view on multiple accounts :

Point 1) It's not intuitive anymore (it's filled with options that appear multiple times in different places (color, bump, Ior; layer opacity/masking...), stuff disabled or hidden that should be on by default and visible (eg fresnel), nested hierarchies sliders and layers that affect one anothers, no referencing of layers...) Out of all the 3D packages and renderers I know (and I've used quite a few) C4D has strangely become the one with the most confusing material system of all. So much so that GSG has made a living out of a plugin to make it usable. I feel I only keep track of everything because I've been using it for a decade now.

Point 2) It's getting overkill with parameters :basically, the world-class renderers (Arnold, Vray, Renderman, Redshift, Clarisse...) are fine with GGX + 1 metallic slider and 2 layers of specular/clear coats (Vray goes up to 4 or 5 but I never used as many), while C4D  goes overkill with 11 shading types,  2 attenuation modes and up to 16 specular layers which you say are energy conservative, but I don't see how they can be since you can put it all in add mode or fade and blend layers with non physical settings.

Point 3) and 4) We have that I guess.

Point 5)  All combinations of parameters should be as robust and plausible as possible: here again, I don't know what was changed in R19, but being physically plausible in R18 is pretty touchy to achieve, and very easy to break.

I'm not even going into the nodal/layered material debate, but we could have had a much better foundation for the future and for C4D in the general 3D ecosystem (including Movies and Video Games) It's a missed opportunity.
 
  07 July 2017
Bodypaint and UV tools need some love, as does the modeling. Despite the excellent Polypen, other programs are just more flexible and quicker to use. The character stuff is totally cluttered, the deformations are not really good which leads to a lot of try and error. The standard deformations in Lightwave are better,as is its flexible morphing and weighting system. Maxon tacks on features without resolving core usability issues, and sometimes it looks as if the programmers come up with good ideas that lack a coherent and decluttering implementation. Still too many clicks in C4D, an outdated unflexible tag system (for example cant select polygons by material) drag this software down a bit.
__________________
Ciao,
Emmanuel
PXLRY
 
  07 July 2017
Originally Posted by hvanderwegen: FYI the machine that is used to demo ProRender in Cineversity's preview has two Quadro M6000s - 
Im not sure thats two quadro cards, its a single card but two individual option on whether it is used for preview renders and final renders.
__________________
Matthew O'Neill
www.3dfluff.com
 
  07 July 2017
Originally Posted by EricM: Given how the rest of the program works, it's the least "C4D-like" element of the whole

Yeah, I'll stipulate to this and just reiterate that PBR workflows in C4D are still evolving.
 
  07 July 2017
With Substance integration in r18, I thought for sure true PBR was finally coming and UV tools overhaul would happen... :(.  I got excited about the poly reduction tool update, but it doesn't  appear to maintain quads :(.  

I think I will use and support the development of the Seamilar UV plugin more now https://www.c4dcafe.com/ipb/store/p...d-r16-17-18-sl/ .  At least it isn't a fantasy.
 
  07 July 2017
Originally Posted by artzfx: With Substance integration in r18, I thought for sure true PBR was finally coming and UV tools overhaul would happen... :(.  I got excited about the poly reduction tool update, but it doesn't  appear to maintain quads :(.  

I think I will use and support the development of the Seamilar UV plugin more now https://www.c4dcafe.com/ipb/store/p...d-r16-17-18-sl/ .  At least it isn't a fantasy.
Whoa I haven't seen this seamilar plugin yet. Does it work as advertised? Is there any reason to continue UVing in 3dcoat with this? It seems like it has the same functionality. 
 
  07 July 2017
It works great.  He is still developing it and adding features.  He provides great support and above all it makes UV'ing fun.
 
  07 July 2017
Here's a nice demo of the viewport.  Looking great. And I believe that's a Mac mouse there, so probably not running on the best video cards on the market.

 
  07 July 2017
Has Pro Render been tested on the mac pro trashcans? Wondering if it utilizes the both firepro cards and if the dual cards add extra performance?
 
  08 August 2017
Originally Posted by RickBarrett: Yeah, I'll stipulate to this and just reiterate that PBR workflows in C4D are still evolving.
If you need feedback from us, dont hesistate...  Im guessing GSG will make TopCoat R19 friendly? That plugin always have intrigued me because its ease of use, but I never purchased it because Arnold covered my needs. Now that Arnold is going subscription only, and AMD Pro Render seems integrated, I can use it until (hopefully next year)  a node based workflow is implemented. I only wish it to be compatible with variation shader, xparticles and TFD.
__________________
demo videos
Close, open-relationship: C4D / Zbrush
Hate / love: Maya / Houdini
Former gf: XSI
 
  08 August 2017
Those are really amazing examples Glen
 
  08 August 2017
Originally Posted by JoelDubin: Has Pro Render been tested on the mac pro trashcans? Wondering if it utilizes the both firepro cards and if the dual cards add extra performance?

Ditto this question. Would be great to finally have something directly integrated with C4D that takes advantage of the dual GPUs. Better 4 years late than never (WRT to Apple's claims).
 
  08 August 2017
Originally Posted by BubblegumDimension: Here's a nice demo of the viewport.  Looking great. And I believe that's a Mac mouse there, so probably not running on the best video cards on the market.

Wow this looks really great and running on a mac
 
  08 August 2017
I see all I need in the future is my print screen key and hardware renderer. good bye painful rendering time.
 
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 01:02 PM.


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