R9 vs Meshsurgury modeling


HI all,

I have been modeling with R9 now fro over a week and although the workflow has vastly been improved, I still miss MS despite the fact that it has been snicked in the update.

This is because although many of MS tools have been copeid here they are not as good in my opinion. You don’t have the option to adjust the band of the loop cuts (or amybe you do and I missed it out in the manual?) and it is the same for the loop selections. This was one of the strongest point of the Catana and the selsection tools in MS.

There is no superflunge either, in fact there is alot missing. I know that Maxon have been saying they did not intergrated MS in R9, just copied a few of their tools. However, if this means anything, I would personaly support the further development of MS and buy any next upgrade the guys might do because for modeling it is still the best thought out tool around for me. I hope they do think it is worth pursuing.

Having said that, R9 models like a dream with all the new tools and especialy the Isoline Editing (someone has already commented on this). It feels almost like modeling with real Nurbs but without the clunkyness. Very good. The only observation so far, it seems to crush more often than it used to, which was never! Now I have to get used to save, something that I do with Maya and deffinately Max. Can we go back to those days when saving was an afterthought?




Hi Jannis,
we are of course still working on stability but sadly many of the crashes are caused by OGL problems. You might like to try to disable OGL features to gain stability.
Several of the new features need OGL to work fast and usable (HUD, Highlighting) so not using OGL wasn’t an alternative.


In regards to MS, you can find info regarding this on the forums (forum.peranders.com), but Paul and Pers say that they will be updating MS to work with 9 as soon as possible. They also hinted at some other things, but it’s all available to read on the forums.



I’ve never read MAXON ever say that since its completely untrue, others have said it, but not MAXON afaik. R9 modeling tools were from user and tester feedback. MS had some influence for a number of reasons, one fact was that the developer was part of the team of people that put forward ideas for R9 and testing. R9 modeling is not intended as a replacement for MS, it was intended as an improvement in the modeling abilities of the core package. There is no reason IMO that MS can’t be an advanced modeling system beyond that of R9. The very fact that areas of MS were not include should tell you that it was not copied. Modeling is an essential part of the core of CINEMA and is always going to be an area that MAXON address itself, it must do IMO.


Well i’m stuck in 8.5 land - but I’ve really been digging deeper into Mesh Surgery - and man it gets better & better - sounds like it’s just as well I couldn’t pony up the dough to buy R9 so far :slight_smile: Perhaps fate will be with me and the day I find i have the money for R9 will be the day MS is released for it.


I’ve never read MAXON ever say that since its completely untrue, others have said it, but not MAXON afaik. R9 modeling tools were from user and tester feedback. MS had some influence for a number of reasons, one fact was that the developer was part of the team of people that put forward ideas for R9 and testing.

I think this is a sticky point in which I do not want to get involved with (I have seen too many threads around the community stating things other than you) other than to say that for all of us who used MS there are an awful lot of similarities to be found in R9. Still this does not concern me, all I am interested in is a tool that works well. Cinema R9 does the job for me better than 8.5. However, MS is a plus I would not like to do without in the update.

To repeat myself, I do hope that they do develop it further.





It seems there are some problems with running Mesh Surgery in R9.


Cactus Dan


I’d also like to see MS go forward for the reasons mentioned above, but based on this, quoted from Postforum, it appears that it’s not going to happen:

"Subject: Mesh Surgery for R9 no go!!
Author: rsquires ( —.mckinn1.vic.optusnet.com.au )
Date: 09-29-04 06:22

In reference to my search for plugin compatabilty with R9 I emailed Paul Everett about various plugins I have from him including the fantastic Mesh Surgery. Sadly I received this reply:

Hi Richard,

Mesh surgery doesnt work in r9, big problems there.Will require a rewrite
and im not sure that will be worth doing as they nicked most of the ideas we
had and put them in R9.

Paul Everett"

BTW, you can do interactive loop selection with the R9 knife and loop tools by holding down the LMB and dragging. Unfortunately the loops grow/shrink from the middle rather than the selection point so it’s a fairly useless feature. Let’s hope that can be addressed in an update.




Hmm in the link you posted, it is mentioned that one would have to pay for the update itself, there goes…I was hoping that the price would fall since most of the plugins capabilities have been ported to rel 9. :cry:


People even mentioning stability issues is bad bad news imo…whether is ogl or not…not good to see. This was one the my biggest worries, stability being affected.


Nicked is a nice choice of words by paul, very professional, especially since he knows who was involved in early testing. How easy it would be to accuse them of nicking a lot of tools form other apps too.

Fact is, yes a lot of tools in R9 are similar to MS, but a lot of things were left untouched (a few that I know could have been put in were left out too, like fuzzy smooth) They aren’t trying to kill off MS, but do need to update their package as well to keep competing with the market. I do hope MS sees an update for R9, things like mesh brush, Fuzzy smooth, the hinge tools, these are unmatched in comparison, and a few tools work in very different ways, which some may prefer in c4d, and some may prefer in MS. Considering I was always told the biggest advantage of MS was its workflow, I don’t see why duplicate tools can’t be in the plugin still if they work “Better” then the inbuilt one too.

Same situation goes for the normal mapper plugin (and the rest of cosmetic surgery) Its a shame that remo did end up beating them to the punch in terms of releasing a normal map shader, but I don’t see why we can’t have a choice between the two, and the additional shaders in each package as well, would hate to lose a great ray marcher just because someone else has a package with one similar shader in it.




Cactus Dan


What is it with plug-ins and MAXON? It seems that with EVERY release the SDK radically changes and everyone has to re-write their plug-ins. This seems counter-productive and not really cost effective to be in the plug-in business writing for C4D.

I remember the troubles with the bhodinut stuff when 8.0 came out. I seem to remember Darf talking about how the API was totally different for that release. Is this the case with R9 as well?

These are the issues that keep me from purchasing plug-ins for C4D. I never know when support will drop with a new version of C4D.


About the time R9 demo became available, Per Anders clearly said here on this forum that MSwould be updated for R9 but, because of the awful lot of work it would not be a free upgrade/update.

I can well understand that both Per Anders and Paul are facing a wall now that Maxon did include in R9 some of the most used tools of Mesh Surgery. High-end users will certainly upgrade their MS, but many other users, including new ones, won’t see the necessity of it. So it is a question of the amount of work vs. the financial outcome.

Yet I am fully convinced that both have so much talent, insight and knowledge that they can include new, fascinating things, or that they can simply start a new suite with the old options in it and add new things.

Having no idea of any kind of agreement between both and Maxon -the idea there was none is hard to swallow- I feel lucky that I had my MS license. At least that makes mt artistic conscience a tad lighter.


well dont forget that the update from 8 to 9 is a very big one - a lot of stuff had to be rewritten, for example to incorporate ngons


R8 saw significnt changes to how things worked, this is a fact of life when you make all thigns non modal, change how the niterface works with things and such, change how objects are linked (remember prior to R8 all things werre linked by names now they use ID’s) Yes it can be difficult for thirdparty programmers, but even maxon themselves have to face the same difficulties. A lot of the new modeling tools I think are there as much because they had to be rewritten as they were fro mere improvements.

With R9, the biggest reason MS has issues is because of the drastic changes under the hood to modeling, and the addition of the ngons. Imagine how much nicer a lot fo the MS tools could be now too once they support ngons. Plugins developers though will see just how much the modeling SDK has been affected, hopefully making their lives a little easier in the future, but it does affect previous versions. Plugins not working in newer versions happens a lot with all the apps, have you ever read the maya forum when new versions come out. Man look at the free mel scripts and such, there are maya 4, 4.5, 5 and sometimes maya 6 versions of the same script, all ever so slightly different. Fact is progress often means changing the way things are done and that means plugins working off of those things need to update as well.

Ever notice how when a new version of windows comes out, a lot of programs are no longer supported and need to be updated, like maxon when OSX came out too. Welcome to the life of a developer, I don’t envy them at all.


I think it’s even more confusing when Maxon distributes a plugin themselves (Golum…CA plugin for $300!), then stops supporting/distributing, then comes out with MOCCA which I then have to purchase at an even higher price. Shouldn’t there have been some kind of discount there?

I can’t afford the upgrade right now, so I’ll be sticking with MS anyway…


‘seems’ maybe, but its not as simple as changes in the SDK, the SDK itself actually is backwards compatible in most cases, and even with XL7 to R8 which had major SDK changes was a fairly simple renaming task.

CINEMA XL7 to R8 was a fairly major update, the changes required to plugins depended heavily on what they did and how they wanted to update. The major change affecting plugins from XL7 to R8 was the UI, plugins did not have to change to modeless and the AM, but to do so needed extra coding.

Changes from R8 to R9 are not that many in the API, there are lots of new areas but most plugins should still work unless they directly used modeling tools (which have all now changed). This is the main area that has been affected, if they did not directly use the pre-R9 tools than there should be few if any changes needed and XL7 and R8 plugins can still run under R9 without any changes at all.

Sometimes plugins don’t work simply because they used hacks into the API or made bad assumptions. Sometimes they don’t work because an area of CINEMA had to be changed to extend what CINEMA can do. Its not as simple as blaming the SDK.

Writing plugins for commercial gain is always a tricky and delicate situation and no matter what API you are using (MAXON or others) at times you must simply make rewrites or changes. An API changing should rarely (if ever) mean you need to rewrite something from scratch unless you are only using the functions/tools available from that API, your own code/algorithms are not affected at all.

One of the main reasons I’ve seen for plugins not working in R9 is simply that they have their serial numbers locked to the CINEMA serial number for protection.


In the short term if the MS team could just strip-out the non-working parts and include what seems to work in v.9 I would be short-term happy. I use the XYZ perspective views all of the time. Even if none of tools worked I want to see those beautiful MS icons on my toolbar.