The C4D Renderer vs The Rest!

AdamT · 2003-10-24 06:14:40 UTC

Yeah, Cinema + $200 for MB or $500-600 for Messhiah is still a lot cheaper than Max–particularly if you have to buy a third-party render solution for satisfactory results (not counting Thorn who has Cinema for that).

thorn3d · 2003-10-24 08:14:47 UTC

Replying to various replies… forgive the paraphrasing, i hate having to format all the “quote” html stuff.

Do you really like maxscript?

Yes, i do. While parts of the docs may be outdated, they are certainly usable and there are a few great people on various forums able and willing to help you learn the ropes. On my first day with it, i was able to read the code and understand how things like dialogs and sliders are created, and pass their values to various functions. Modifying it is easy and user-friendly. The script recorder does have limitations, but it’s better than nothing at all. If COFFEE was as elegant as maxscript you’d see a lot more COFFEE plugins out there, instead of people asking for some coder to do it for them.

Add Messiah 4 to XL8 and you’ve got a good solution, comparable to max

Based on P-M’s history,I’m rather suspect of that. Hopefully this time around they finally have it right, but I’ve heard nothing but disappointment from people who bought P-M for C4D use in the past.

Add FBX and motion builder, and you’re set to go.

Perhaps you will be… I’m looking forward to FBX/C4D myself. But I prefer to do as much work in 1 app as possible, instead of lots of import/export/re-import/re-export, now let’s render. I’ve heard MB is great, so perhaps it’s worth the extra steps.

Xpresso vs maxscript
They aren’t the same thing… Xpresso is closest to max’s parameter wiring (or possibly the reactor controller). Expresso does have more power than parameter wiring (until you write code), but you can’t (nor was it intended) use Xpresso to write plugins. Apples and oranges, so to speak.

Overall, I don’t agree that the C4D character gaps (vs max) are closing this year. While I’m not up on all the latest plugins in development, I’m somewhat familiar with where XL8 stands… and based on that, it appears to me that 3rd party development is attempting solve problems that shouldn’t exist in the first place.

That’s better than no solution at all, of course, but when I look at software I prefer a viewpoint of “the app features are strong, the add-ons make it even better” rather than “the features are weak/lacking, the add-ons make it useable.”

thorn

gfx1 · 2003-10-24 08:39:37 UTC

My God, here we go again.

It’s just a bloody program!!

See, art should be fun for me, period. For me, C4D is fun, Photoshop is fun, Sketchup, Xara X, Wings 3D, Vue d’Esprit, that’s fun. I don’t like 3DS Max for several reasons, but the reasons don’t matter or do they? Someone is happy or someone is not, period.

And because you have fun you’re able to do things that you thought weren’t possible, so in the end you get what you want and isn’t that all what counts; joy and results?

So stop this really stupid discussion and think like an artist for once in your life, because who really cares if one scripting language is better than the other. This is not a discussion about “What should I buy”, this is all about “Look how good my program is”.

Childish behaviour if you ask me! :banghead:

Sorry, but I just hate these kind of discussions, can you tell?

thorn3d · 2003-10-24 08:57:35 UTC

It’s just a bloody program!!
No one has stated otherwise.

because who really cares if one scripting language is better than the other.
At least 3 people cared; they asked my opinion, and I’m giving it. The fact that you don’t care doesn’t mean others do not.

Childish behaviour if you ask me!
No one asked.

Sorry, but I just hate these kind of discussions, can you tell?
Then don’t read and participate in them, as simple as that.

thorn

rocarpen · 2003-10-24 09:46:01 UTC

Originally posted by gfx@rt
[B]My God, here we go again.

It’s just a bloody program!!

See, art should be fun for me, period. For me, C4D is fun, Photoshop is fun, Sketchup, Xara X, Wings 3D, Vue d’Esprit, that’s fun. I don’t like 3DS Max for several reasons, but the reasons don’t matter or do they? Someone is happy or someone is not, period.

And because you have fun you’re able to do things that you thought weren’t possible, so in the end you get what you want and isn’t that all what counts; joy and results?

So stop this really stupid discussion and think like an artist for once in your life, because who really cares if one scripting language is better than the other. This is not a discussion about “What should I buy”, this is all about “Look how good my program is”.

Childish behaviour if you ask me! :banghead:

Sorry, but I just hate these kind of discussions, can you tell? [/B]

This is childish? I’d actually call it one of the most informative threads I’ve ever read here on CGTalk.

Also, I’m happy that 3D is arty fun for you and all, but for some people it’s serious, serious business (which we might happen to also enjoy). And I don’t know about you, but when I make a decision that might see me invest several thousand dollars into a piece of software, you can be damn sure I’m going to research it six ways from Sunday.

Ikari · 2003-10-24 10:07:02 UTC

i’ve got a very very simple look on this competing between cinema4d and other renderers.

can c4d-renderings look really photorealistic? yes they can look more real than reality (maybe you know what i mean, because we often dont realize some effects and visual impressions in the real world, which a rendering holds us under the nose (or before the eye, like you see it).
is c4d fast? of course it is. competing it with renderers of high-end 3d-software like maya and 3dsmax, it kicks out their basic renderers. of course, maya got mray, 3ds got final renderer and brazil and more and so on and so on, but AE costs only about 400 $ and cinema 4d basic about 800 $, makes 1200 $ and that’s what you would pay for brazil.
is it stable? yeah man, i knew 3dsmax to get crashed so often and to use such an huge amount of systems ressource, this counts for maya too.

my resume: c4d cant compete with PRman and Mray, but just take a look what you can do with cinema4d for that price - should tell you more than any other argument. we have included general GI, then comes especially hdri-support, which is not that kinda industrial rendering option, but for a freelancer its great

thats why i render with cinema4d - it’s great and i got it together with the programm, and i’m able to realize anything in it - so i dont need Mray.

i dont talk about character animation, or about lack of modelling tools. thats not the topic and because i’m not the animator guy, even not the texture artist (but i read “c4d 8.2 - ein workshop für profis”, because i’m german, and i first started to bodypaint, just to fall in love with it).
ok, the ThinkingParticle thing and the COFFEE thing are hard to use for me, cause i’m really not the coder guy (just HTML, and lil bit of Perl, SQL and PHP, i would called it advanced nothing-knowing), but thinkingparticles seem to me to produce kinda really phat and nice animations.

i tried character animation in cinema4d, and i chose to buy MotionBuilder if i ever should want to do the animation stuff.

but for the modelling part: i dont have mesh surgery, because i cant afford it. i even dont use diTools and so one, my only used plug-ins are some organization helpes cause sometimes i seem to be the 200 objects in a scene guy, and they all are called "Polygon-object, polygon-object1, polygon-object2, and so on, and thus i needed a solution for this lack of discipline). but i like the modelling flow with c4d. in max, you have some great and really really mighty tools, but for me (thats MY opinion, worx for me but i never reflect it on other people’s preferd workflow) c4d is not only working, its kinda great fun to work in it, and in max for me its more like work, based on my disliking of max’s interface, where i would say c4d has one of the most clear, ergonomic and easy-to-use interface, but ok, you say it, it’s just a matter of time to rework any interface cause every big 3d-package has the option to build your own one.

mainly, what i dislike, is that lots of max and maya users look down on c4d-users, once a max user asked me with what i did a certain work which he liked really much. i said thats c4d, and he instantly, i mean just the time to write it, repeated: oh, c4d…thats not much of art because its easy to do in c4d.
what should i say to this, someone complaining to me that a certain 3d-solution is not as good as his because some things in it are easier to realize cause of better built tools for it?
thats a major problem, its kinda C+±people looking on delphi-coders, thinking c++ is the big deal and delphi the kiddy n00bie stuff.

lmilton · 2003-10-24 11:09:31 UTC

Originally posted by neverwake
[B]
Add Messiah 4 to XL8 and you’ve got a good solution, comparable to max

Based on P-M’s history,I’m rather suspect of that. Hopefully this time around they finally have it right, but I’ve heard nothing but disappointment from people who bought P-M for C4D use in the past.

[/B]

Based on that info, you wouldn’t even be using C4D. You may not remember this, but earlier versions of C4D weren’t exactly stable. Maxon realized this and took care of the problems. Now you enjoy a level of stability that max users envy.

The main problem with the first incarnations of the messiahC4D connection was in understanding C4D users’ expectations (sure there were other problems, but this was the most critical). With dedication and a lot of hard work, we’ve been able to forge a good understanding with C4D users. And are now building some very positive relationships.

What’s important for you and others to know is that we’ve never given up on C4D support. We’re just as dedicated to our customers as Maxon. Futher, it’s because we are both so dedicated to our customers that you have a working, non-crippled messiahC4D connection; the connection to C4D is just as powerful as the connections to max & maya. This would have been impossible without Maxon & pmG collaboration and user support.

Those C4D users who have provided us with the necessary feedback already know that we are proactive with regards to addressing problems. It’s this kind of collaboration with the users that will grow the messiahC4D connection and make it even more powerful and allow you to animate with confidence… and fun:})

To that end, if you’re still experiencing any problems with the messiahC4D connections, don’t hesitate to post on the messiah yahoo group or on the messiah forum right here on CGTalk.

Warmest regards,

-lyle milton
-pmG

ps: didn’t mean to hijack the discussion. I just thought it important to address this issue.

ThirdEye · 2003-10-24 11:18:28 UTC

Originally posted by lmilton
You may not remember this, but earlier versions of C4D weren’t exactly stable.

I’ve been using C4D since version 5 and it never crashed here. Are you talking about C4D 1,2,3,4? Plus thorn has an even longer C4D experience so he remembers this and that for sure

lmilton · 2003-10-24 11:21:21 UTC

Originally posted by Olli Wuensch

Messiah:Animate 4 has a working connection to Cinema 8 and makes most character issues a thing of the past if you are willing to learn and use it.
When .fbx support is out, Motionbuilder will be added to the character-toolbox (which i personally prefer over M:A, although M:A is more powerful, but MB interface is so much cleaner and easier to learn when used to c4d).

Hmmm… that’s different… Much of the feedback that I’ve been getting has been contrary. Most have found the messiah easier with which to interact than MB. I’m talking about setup and “pure” animation.

What is it about messiah that you find… “not clean”?

Also, many have found the “hot connection” to host apps a major plus, as opposed to using an import/export mechanism. Are you finding it difficult?

-lyle

ps: sorry to hijack again. Just trying to understand.

lmilton · 2003-10-24 11:31:37 UTC

Originally posted by ThirdEye_01
I’ve been using C4D since version 5 and it never crashed here. Are you talking about C4D 1,2,3,4? Plus thorn has an even longer C4D experience so he remembers this and that for sure

Yes, you are the beneficiary of that which I speak;})

I remember when a Maxon rep came by to demo C4D at Station X Studios where I worked, at the time (this was before the release of project:messiah, messiah:animate, etc). This had to be about 1999. I remember that everyone’s perception at the time was that C4D was unstable. The rep took great pains to let us know, and to demonstrate the instability problems had been addressed. He even invited us to try to crash it:})

Anyway, my point was that the messiahC4D connection was a very early version. The new connection shouldn’t be judged solely on the performance of the old. It is new, after all.

-lyle

thorn3d · 2003-10-24 11:32:03 UTC

Hi Lyle,

I’ve been using C4D since v4, and on the beta team since 1997… in the 6 yrs I’ve used it, I’ve found C4D to be among the most stable apps I’ve ever seen. While I’ve not a lot of current experience with XL8, I clearly recall that all the XL versions prior (5,6,7) were incredibly stable - to the point I used to do keynotes @ SIG and bet people they could not crash it; a bet i never lost, btw ;).

For the record, I have not used P:M and therefore my comments are based solely on hearsay that I’ve read in various forums. I’m aware of the working situation between PMG and Maxon, and it’s great to hear things are going in a positive direction. P:M is certainly regarded as a good solution for animation, and something C4D users have long wished for.

If my comments were not accurate to the real P:M situation, I’d like to apologize as it’s certainly not my wish to give people the wrong impression of your product… but as I said, there were consistent with what I have read.

In any case, best of luck to you and PMG in the future - I’m sure if things go as planned with the bridge plugin, C4D users will be rather happy with the results.

thorn

lmilton · 2003-10-24 11:51:47 UTC

Originally posted by neverwake
[B]Hi Lyle,

I’ve been using C4D since v4, and on the beta team since 1997… in the 6 yrs I’ve used it, I’ve found C4D to be among the most stable apps I’ve ever seen. While I’ve not a lot of current experience with XL8, I clearly recall that all the XL versions prior (5,6,7) were incredibly stable - to the point I used to do keynotes @ SIG and bet people they could not crash it; a bet i never lost, btw ;).

For the record, I have not used P:M and therefore my comments are based solely on hearsay that I’ve read in various forums. I’m aware of the working situation between PMG and Maxon, and it’s great to hear things are going in a positive direction. P:M is certainly regarded as a good solution for animation, and something C4D users have long wished for.

If my comments were not accurate to the real P:M situation, I’d like to apologize as it’s certainly not my wish to give people the wrong impression of your product… but as I said, there were consistent with what I have read.

In any case, best of luck to you and PMG in the future - I’m sure if things go as planned with the bridge plugin, C4D users will be rather happy with the results.

thorn [/B]

Hey thorn,

I didn’t take offense to anything you’ve said. My apologies if something in my post came across in a negative way.

All things considered, I think you’re right to post the information that you had, good or bad, right or wrong. The fact is, from the C4D user’s perspective, the “bad press” that we’ve gained due to the unreliable state of the early messiahC4D connection was well deserved. It doesn’t matter wether we as a company believe we deserve it, the fact is that C4D users thought we did. But now as we’re working directly with C4D users, the negative perceptions for us both are begining to fade into oblivion.

Understanding. That’s what it’s all about.

Thank you for the kind words of support:)

Take care,

-lyle

AdamT · 2003-10-24 12:28:36 UTC

I think Messiah is great software. My problem with pMG is that they advertised a Cinema connection when it was barely working–without mentioning that fact–which induced me to purchase software I couldn’t use. Now I’m not in the business of investing $600-700 in software in the hopes that it may work sometime in the next year or two–although that appears to be the pMG business model. Since I have a limited software budget I have to prioritize, and buying one thing means foregoing another. I gather that all is now well, so that’s great. Water under the bridge and all that.

I still prefer MB, and a lot of it has to do with the GUI. MB is very similar to Cinema in that you can move and group windows wherever you like and save personalized layouts. In Messiah you have a lot of important dialogues lined up on the left-hand side of the screen, and these are always scrolling off where you obviously can’t see them. Not a clever GUI in my opinion. I also found the process of assigning expressions rather bizarre, which was not made easier by the huge number of them that were undcomented.

The documentation in general was a sore point with me, it being entirely html-based and formatted in such a way as to prevent printing. In contrast, MB has a nice paper manual and lots of excellent video and pdf tutorials to really get you going.

Lastly, MB has prebuilt rigs that work really well, and a more comprehensible motion blending scheme–at least it is to me. And of course it also ships with tons of ready-to-use motions, which is a big bonus.

Overall I think Messiah is probably the better application for the pure animator, whereas MB is superior for someone like me who wants to do some character animation but doesn’t have the time or desire to master both rigging and animating.

wuensch · 2003-10-24 12:46:01 UTC

Hi, Lyle.
I am one of the c4d users that were disappointed aboutthe first M:A connection.
I have been testing the new connection (with M:A3 it was not even built for) for a couple of days now and am seriously considering to update my M:A to the very powerful and promising M:A4.
With the new connection (and very innovative features in M:A4) you have re-gained my personal trust in the product again.

About the easyness of interface M:A vs MB:

MBs program logic is very similar to the Attribute manager concept of C4d, which made it for me easier to get a start.
Its not that I could not work with M:A3.

Actually, the Autorig you introduced in M:A4 might make me prefer M:A4 in the end-- thats a really easy to use and straightforward rigging concept, really.

In the end, when diving into M:A the interface differences will most probably fade away—
after all, before MS became so cheap I was doing my MoCap Compositing in Lifeforms (Urgh) and at some point I could even work fluently with it (Press Enter-key to cancel dialogue-- who has made this insane hotkey-choice in LF).
As for Thorns opinion that its all about the features of the main app-- thats OK, its a stanspoint- but what would a Max user be without his Plug-Ins, come on Reactor, Characterstudio— all that was PlugIns before being integrated–
Max is and will stay Plugin-King, of course.
I envy the wealth of pluins Max has.
(Though it would probably make me a poor man).

Olli

flingster · 2003-10-24 13:02:59 UTC

sorry about butting in here and ALL the discussion recently in this thread i’ve really enjoyed…

(i’m also glad to see we even have pmg representation entering the discussion and thorn entering the fray…)

one thing i would like clarification on is:
refraction channel
translucency channel

i think some people mentioned they were missing or would like to see them…can’t remember exactly and don’t really want to go back through rest of thread (please correct if i’m wrong).
My question is can someone expand on these a bit more for me? and are there any other materials channels people feel are missing?

thanks

MJV · 2003-10-24 18:00:38 UTC

Originally posted by neverwake
[B]Hi Micheal, Adam, Neods,

Overall, moving to max has been worthwhile in the sense that max fulfills the needs I had. I wanted better modeling and better animation than C4D was offering, and max has given me both. C4D still has various strengths over max, so depending on the work I use max or XL as necessary.
thorn [/B]

Thanks thorn. What exactly is wrong with the lights and shadows in Max? Don’t like the sound of that. It is something easy or hard to work around, features missing that Cinema has?

lmilton · 2003-10-24 18:07:32 UTC

Originally posted by AdamT
I think Messiah is great software. My problem with pMG is that they advertised a Cinema connection when it was barely working–without mentioning that fact–which induced me to purchase software I couldn’t use. Now I’m not in the business of investing $600-700 in software in the hopes that it may work sometime in the next year or two–although that appears to be the pMG business model. Since I have a limited software budget I have to prioritize, and buying one thing means foregoing another. I gather that all is now well, so that’s great. Water under the bridge and all that.

First let me say that I’m not responding to this just to be argumentative, or to start a negative discussion that will lead us nowhere. My intent is to inform. This is gong to be long, because it’s not really easy to sum up the messiah/C4D issue in a few sentences.

As far as the sentiment that you expressed in regards to the way we do business, I’ll keep that in the proper context. I understand that you still feel some residual bitterness towards us because of the way that you feel you were treated. It’s just unfortunate that the events unfolded in such a way that there was a major disconnect with the way you felt, and the way we were trying to support you.

When we created the first messiahC4D connection, it was designed for version 7, not 8. Version 8 was released right around the time that we released the connection for 7. Many of the complaints started when people tried to use the connection with 8. We discovered too late that we’d have to not just recompile, but rewrite the entire connection to be compatible with 8.

Considering how long it took us to create the 7 connection, it was outside the realm of possibility to create the 8 connection as quickly as we’d hoped. Comparitively, all connections to the other major apps went very smoothly, so the difficulties we encountered with C4D were quite unexpected. Having said that, I don’t think there’s any way for Maxon to have envisioned this level of interconnection when they designed their APIs.

Another problem arose when users tried to use the connection with C4D elements for which we hadn’t designed. In the development phase and in testing, we had a group of artists provide us with feedback. We’d gone through some very thorough testing… or so we thought. When the connection was released, quite a few users started reporting problems. Then there were a few threads that erupted when some artists asserted that the connection did indeed perform as advertised. The problem was that the artists with whom we worked, didn’t use specific features on which the greater C4D community relies. Unfortunately, the fixes turned out not to be as easy as we’d hoped.

Looking back, I’d say it was insane to commit to C4D support without having any idea of what we were up against. I guess we got lulled into a false bravado because of the relative ease with which we developed the connections to the other major apps (considering how varied those API’s are, bravado was natural).

At the time, if I had a clearer picture of the task, we never would have developed a C4D connection, at all. However, after having gone through it all, I have to say wholeheatedly that it would have been a real shame. We’re building some great relationships within the C4D community, and this includes Maxon. I guess we experienced what we had to experience… the bad and the good.

I’m telling you [read:anyone still holding on to bitterness] all this info not to sway you. I’m very respectful of the fact that you’re long past that. I’m telling you this so that when you speak ill of us and our efforts, you’re armed with as much background info as possible to provide a more balanced picture.

Overall I think Messiah is probably the better application for the pure animator, whereas MB is superior for someone like me who wants to do some character animation but doesn’t have the time or desire to master both rigging and animating.

Considering the length of what I already posted, I will try to not to be too long-winded on this.

From block sizing to AutoRig, much of the complaints you’ve leveled have been addressed in the latest version, messiah:animate 4. For all intents and purposes, messiah:animate 3, was really version 1 of our standalone products. It may be a better idea to judge based on current works, not the past. Other complaints, such as a printed manual, have no positive resolution for you.

As far as the overall workflow, it’s important to keep in mind that messiah:animate was designed for a specific task: character animation. There was a great deal of research and feeback from pro character animators that helped to craft the GUI. And as such, it should be different from the host app. It is this focus that gained our products wide acceptance, and it is for this reason that Maxon approached us to create the C4D connection.

Having said that, I totally understand that MB feels more comfortable to you. Yes, our immediate goal is to sell software, but we have a greater goal to advance the art and “fun” of character animation. If MB is a good fit for you, then that pleases us, too. And I really mean that.

Take care,

-lyle

lmilton · 2003-10-24 18:16:12 UTC

Originally posted by Olli Wuensch
Actually, the Autorig you introduced in M:A4 might make me prefer M:A4 in the end-- thats a really easy to use and straightforward rigging concept, really.

I’m glad you’re happy with AutoRig:}) And what you’re working with now is really a base for which we will provide even greater setup and animation flexibility. If you like the ease of the current version, I think you’re going to be very pleased with the later incarnations.

Thank you much for the feedback:thumbsup:

-lyle

AdamT · 2003-10-24 21:52:46 UTC

Thanks for the reply(s) Lyle. I really am glad you guys have persisted with the Cinema connection. You’re right that my comments were based largely on Animate 3, and except for looking at a feature list and a few videos I haven’t any experience with M:A 4. What I have seen was pretty damned impressive, particularly the armature system. It’s certainly possible that I could return to Messiah should character animation become a bigger part of my work.

LucentDreams · 2003-10-24 22:52:00 UTC

First I’ll say Lyle that Messigh 4 looks really good, the app still appeals to me, and I do hope the new connection works as well as intended.

However, I’m surprised by your post particularily about how well tested the connection to messiah was. For testing I was given nothing more then a demo and little support to get it working, I sent many emails regarding it and the fact that the connection as far as I was able wasn’t working, and then was dropped(or rather never got any responses or updates) from testing, and this is considered good testing? I do hope whoever is testing the connection for you is doing a better job.

The issue regarding R8 was an unfortunate shame, but wasn’t made clear enough to users buying though a known issue.

Anyways, good to see progress on messiah 4 is going well, the product itself is very nice, one issue I have though is using a software package when I have had unappealing experiences with the company before.