Cinema 4d users to XSI Foundation?


#21

HyperNURBS is just Maxon’s trade name for their subD implementation. It uses a polymesh as a driver surface to generate a subdivided and therefore smoother mesh. Ergo, subdivision surfaces. That they call them something else doesn’t change what they are.


#22

I’m still seriously considering XSI foundation… even after the r9 release and the student licence of the XL bundle being available for $300…the XSI advanced student licence costs the same, so if I’m going to buy a student licence the XSI advanced seems like an awsome oportunity…

On the other hand… For just a bit more, I can get a full licence of XSI foundation. No limitations, the posibility of using it for paid work.
So on one hand I can learn higher end tools like cloth dynamics or node base compositing… and on the other I can probably earn some dough doing some more “simple” 3d stuff…

So I’ve been banging my head against a wall tring to make up my mind, I need some advice…

what would you guys do?


#23

u can compare hypernurbs with the smoothproxy in maya… and smoothproxy is not subD :slight_smile:
with subD u have so much more control over the mesh which u havent when using hypernurbs - those are simply smoothed polys (like pressing tab in xsi) !


#24

incorrect. they are subd. hypernurbs utilises the catmull clark algorithm. it has point and edge weighting, it is not hsds (or sometimes called simply sds), which i suspect is what you are thinking of, but which XSI also does not have (closest it has is the ability to use it’s construction history on several subd stages, which is kinda like z-brush smoothing).

cinema 4d is a polygon and subd modeler. i should know, i coded Mesh Surgery.


#25

Valentine… no offense meant, but you’re completely wrong on this one.

Who wins the “best modeler” contest may be up for debate, but C4D is indeed a sub-D modeler.

thorn


#26

ok - u argued me into this :slight_smile:

…and a great piece of software u did there ! i tried it at work and that was really the solution for almost all my problems in cinemamodeling ! but theres still one thing you should implement into ms - ad an option to the katana, that makes cuts with a predefined distance to the vertices (alternatively edges) to have more precise control… because so far i only can control the cuts position relatively to the respective distance between the polygons vertices… i hope u understand my poor english :wink:

best regards
jannis


#27

ok ok - you got me - sry for my doggedness :wink:

regards
jannis


#28

not sure i follow. you can do partial cuts. or do you mean you want a counter for doing x edges rather than % of the loop?


#29

thereabout… a counter that allows me to precise define the distance between one of the two edges of the polygon and the newly created edge :slight_smile:

heres a sketch:

would be great to see this in one of the next releases :slight_smile:

best regards
jannis


#30

oh, you’re not talking about partial loops, but the offset, sure it’s possible. the only thing is working out where 0m is.


#31

wow plenty of responses on here.
i know really what c4d can do and r9 just looks killer to me…as someone mentioned modelling + MS, ngons and subpolydisp is just funky…the speed, stability and quality is there no doubt…i’m slightly worried about missing my xfrog, ditools,jenna combination…use them alot…

btw mdme_sadie…does this mean you are writing MS for xsi? heh heh.
also how have you found the move…i know you’re technically way out there than me…but i’d love to hear of your thoughts/experiences with it if possible…kinda a per take on the whole thing…MR is what really attracts me i think if i put it on my list and the shader setup.

tony: i’ll take a look at that book bud…cheers.

thalaxis: yeah i agree with ya bud…the whole maxon situation thing has really disillusioned me in someway…and i don’t think feasibly i can retain my investment in both…the thought of having to upgrade both seems a bit mad…maybe keep c4d core for my plugs…then export by objects.


#32

Per and a few of us already discussed our views about a C4D/XSI comparison a lot in the following thread:
http://www.cgtalk.com/showthread.php?t=161887

but I wouldn’t trust me, sheep or Dave if they paid me to trust us.
Per was spot on tho.


#33

thanks bud i’ll take a lookie and see…
cheers


#34

The only thing that I’m disappointed about in v9 is the fact that they didn’t upgrade the shader toolset.

Now that I know how much it’s going to cost, I’m definitely planning to get it; I’m quite pleased with it overall. But I’m probably also going to get XSI because of this deal, and hope that Maxon rises to the challenge down the road.

Just watch Maxon introduce a new module for compositing and make the upgrade thing even more complicated next year :wink:


#35

Hey all you C4D/XSI users… I am trying to pull camera animation from a C4D scene and was wondering if anyone has some tips to share for getting accurate results. I’ve been trying the .fbx format, but am finding that there are some quarks in the plugin. I have had great success with similar tasks using .fbx from LW/Maya/Max to XSI, but I fear the plugin for C4D is sub-par.

Is a dotXSI or other full transfer format available for C4D? If I had LW I would have the guy try a .lwo export, but unfortunately I won’t be able to open it… and deep exploration is not an option.

Any thoughts?

Cheers


#36

what problems with fbx bit in c4d are you having problems with? seems strange i was always lead to believe…but then this is always a bad way to comment on something…but i was always led to believe the bridge was very good between the two…

xml data can be exported from c4d is this would be any help? not that i know much about what to do with it…i would have said use lightwave export…but you got problems with that.
dunno…sorry bud.


#37

well, i have to admit i don’t tend to use XSI much in depth seeing as most of my focus these days is on plugin writing, c4d’s SDK is a little gem so i tend to focus there. as for MS for XSI… well, not until a lot of radical changes take place within the XSI SDK, currently it’s just not possible.

xsi as an app from a users perspective. i’m afraid all i can say is that it depends user to user. try out the demos/experience versions. if you really like it, then don’t let other people sway you from getting it, if you dislike it, then equally don’t be a victim of peer group pressure. it’s your money spend it on what makes the most sense to you.

right now it seems like it’s a great deal, though it is as far as i have seen a non upgradeable verison, and considerably less feature rich than the experience version. however it’s still a powerful app, but don’t expect more than in the demos.


#38

Could you give some details, what radical changes would that be ? So XSI’s SDK is limiting you writing complex plugins, such as MeshSurgery or Storm Tracer ? If so, could you give some examples of the limitations.

Thanks


#39

It is upgradable, according to SoftImage customer service.


#40

simply put XSI has very little in regards to handling the gui.

writing something with previews and viewport interaction like MS would need somebody to also write a graphical frontend to it that would be hosted in a CDH.
simply not worth the ridiculous effort.

XSI’s SDK is a valid pipeline tool and stuff like the CDH is unprecedented, but it doesn’t help much if you are writing userfriendly and funky plugins (altho it’s getting better every version).