R10 Whishlist


#21

Plus .dwg import

Jorge Arango


#22

As with regards to the Vray integration, it would in theory be possible with the new Vray.exe project going on, would just need the export bit from c4d. maybe something to look into :wink:


#23

if maxon did a job on the renderer like they just did on the modelling…would people still be wanting external renderer support?

probably a few…i would like to see maxon take on this, just to see what they would come up with. hopefully if external support is provided it doesn’t mean the end of c4d internal renderer development which is a reason for not providing external support in a way.


#24

If they added the stuff I requested I probably wouldn’t have to invest in a 3d-party renderer, but I still think it would be a good idea to provide the necessary hooks into the render engine. It would make Cinema a better option for bigger studios.


#25

Just a simple Bridge tool would be nice :wink: as in select face, select face, and bridge… and whoila, all should be connected, and one object… though taking it out further like as in Silo’s bridge capabilities would also be way cool :smiley: Seriously, the workflow for some things still seems kinda awkward eh.


#26

the bridge tool is just select face, select other face, then bridge. cinema just allows you to bridge multiple faces, points, and different seleciton groups (very useful if you’ve got a bunch of holes to make, cos you can preselect the polys that need bridging then bridge each hole click click click click… :smiley:


#27

I still think that point releases can have major upgrades. Look at 8.2 and 8.5. HDRI was a big deal, the new texture layout was also huge in my book.

I’m sure they’ll be a point release in the near future with some minor modifications.

As for Dynamics, I think you can do just as well with Keyframes, FCurves and a little patience.

Atleast you have options.


#28

Yes, the bridge works terrific for making holes on seperate objects, as you suggest, but, for bridging two seperate objects together I get the bridge, but it would seem that on one side things are not “welded” … hmmm, maybe I am totaly missing something… wouldn’t be the first time :smiley:


#29

ah, for seperate objects, then yes, don’t think it’s not been requested though :smiley: for the meanwhile when you do this select all the objects then Connect, and finally run optimise on them.


#30

ah, that’s what I thought… back to my original comment then :smiley:

Thanks for clearing this up for me MS, I thought I was totaly missing something :smiley:

Cheers


#31

construction history/scripting
Texture Tree’s
faster area shadows
custom area lights resolution
faster blurry effects
refraction channel
artifacts free GI engine
bucket rendering of stills across a net
3D motion blur
overhauled timeline
more to come


#32

What is the diference between the refraction channel and the reflection channel?


#33

R9 is good and lot of enhancements…

We , (Architectural visualization) need good dwg / dxf import…:)…dxf import esiting is most strgangest thing…I see…

more to ask …still if ADT export plug in comes…:bounce::bounce:


#34

I would like to see a shadertree, and more tools for import/export to realtime engines (though I should just learn C.O.F.F.E.E and start making import/export plugins).

It would also be great to see light-mapping tools such as gile[s] inside C4D with export option to crossplatform engines such as Torque (Blitz3D or 3DGameStudio):

http://www.frecle.net/giles/
http://www.garagegames.com/pg/product/view.php?id=1
http://alexswanson.com/torque/dts/


#35

Hi people,

a lotta people are asking for 3rd party renderers. Please do also consider that more renderers mean more work for 3rd party plugin developers as we most probably will need to create plugins for different renderers (or have to put a lot of more work into the plugin to support other renderers!).
This will either result in not-supporting other renderers because development time is not justifyable or if there is support in higher prices as this development time has to be paid.

With more power and more professionality, prices will raise in any area. I for myself would rather like to see the C4D renderer to be improved. “external” things do only complicate the process too much and this might destroy the ease of use of c4d (beside positive effects of course, but do you really wanna exchange the ease with a bitta more power?..especially as the c4d renderer is cabaple of improving in this direction)

Just my 2 cents.


#36

i’m guessing giving the ability to control in/out Incidence of Refraction and dispersion/abberation of things spectrum colours…without having to hack it with the spectral shader…dunno though.

but it raises good question i would like maxon to look at all materials channel looking at what can be improved that currently exists and things like refraction/translucency channels or whatever can’t think about right now that i’ve probably missed…things like speedy blurred reflections. there are lots of tweaks in areas that would really benefit us i think…even without the whole shader tree just under the current layout.

edit: eg instancing a material channel so it changes all channels rather than each one having to be tweaked.


#37

Hello!

I gathered all the real suggestions posted by other peeps:
**** redesigned timeline and timeslider;

  • Xrefs/file referencing;
    *** raytraced motion blur;
  • raytraced dof;
    ***** faster blurry effects;
    ***** faster area shadows;
  • SDK/API hooks to 3d-party renderers (for whoever wants to support Cinema);
    ***** improved editor display (bumpmaps/displacement, effects);
  • improved Claude Bonet (blending);
  • more useable, though less accurate, dynamics–along the lines of Clothilde;
  • improved ease-of-use for TP and Xpresso;
  • auto-rigging/weighting.
    *** shadertree
  • object library supports sub folder
    ***** irradiance map+light map GI like Vray’s
    *** pictureviewer supports cache to compare different render results
  • progressive/realtime render preview
    ****** real time post effect edit
  • more Xpresso nodes like houdini’s (copy ransform…)
  • construction history/scripting
  • custom area lights resolution
  • artifacts free GI engine
    ******** bucket rendering of stills across a net
  • 3D motion blur
    The more asteriks ’ * ’ the more i want the respective feature :).

Plus… my own suggestion:

  • advanced baking system of an entire 3D scene with radiosity, caustics and SSS. Not like the included plugin which you need to make editable each object and then bake it… manually one-by-one and it doesn’t replace your non-baked texture to the new created one.

This would help me much.


#38

Some nice ideas here, I would like:

the cut tool to work in isoline rather than jumping back to the cage (just a bit weird), but maybe that will be a point release :slight_smile:

Nodal shader system
Xgrid support for clustered rendering (xgrid is now available for Mac and Windows)
Hardware rendering


#39

a little thing that always bugs me:
please rework the browser, so that I can access a list of catalogs from a menu or so, at least the recent 10 or 20 catalogs used.
even better: motion-builder stile “Favorite path” type links that can be chosen.
Migt be something for a plugin writer though.

Otherwise, apart from reworked timeline (which will come for sure) and easier faster dynamics and a Thinking particles preset library for the TP nerds, I am pretty much at the end of my wishlist.

R9 has realy left me applauding and is much more than I dared to ask.

Olli


#40

OK, R9 is more than a handful, but in a year or two… yeah, I guess…

On top of what’s been mentioned so far (thanks a BUNCH to robodesign for the summary) I’d really like to see some basic video compositing/editing in a C4D module… sort of like what they’ve got in the Mega Super-duper version of XSI… but that’s not the reason, nope, it’s because my previous app Blender had it as well, and it was VERY useful.

So, for R10: built-in editing and compositing for image sequences! :deal:

Actually, when looking at the complete C4D Studio setup with BP and all, we’ve already got everything a one-man band needs, except for the above detail. It makes sense to add it.

EDIT: Further more, looking at how the current codebase must look, I bet most of the stuff needed to make such a module is already there. They would “only” have to reuse and recombine what’s already coded. (please note the ""s around ‘only’)