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 
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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?
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
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
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.
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.
Hello Kai,
Originally posted by Kaiskai
[B]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.
[/B]
Ron Griswold, programmer & pro TD, is responsible for developing the C4D, Maya, & Max connections (I handled LW). Everyone who’s worked with him would describe him as a highly competent, conscientious & trustworthy fellow. He would not have given the “all clear” if he didn’t feel confident in the C4D connection. Further, current messiahC4D users can attest to his professionalism & responsiveness. You have but to read the messiah forum or the yahoo group to confirm this.
This isn’t to say that your take on the events is wrong, there just may be a disconnect on the timeline or the communication. A lot of time has passed, after all. I will say, however, that I asked Ron on numerous occasions wether he was getting good feedback on the attempt at correcting the issues. He’d indicated that no one was getting back to him with the necessary info, at the time.
If you don’t mind my asking, who gave you a demo for beta testing (I don’t remember seeing your name on the beta list)? Also, if you didn’t send mail directly to Ron (I checked with him), to whom at pmG did you send it? Maybe a bad address?
The issue regarding R8 was an unfortunate shame, but wasn’t made clear enough to users buying though a known issue.
Actually, I believe it was made clear by sales before any purchases were finalized. I remember talking to some people myself. Of course, this was after we discovered the magnitude of the problems, and that there wouldn’t be any quick fixes. We did contemplate removing C4D support from our website, but we felt that would have sent the wrong message to the 3D community. Besides, the demo was there to test before making any purchases.
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.
It’s going to take time for you to feel comfortable again. Understood. When you feel you’re ready to jump back in, we’ll still be here supporting C4D:})
Warmest regards,
-lyle
Ron is very mistaken I have both emails and cgtalk PM’s all on record still all from Ron Griswold. I even recommended other people to test for the C4D connection. He sent me the email with the link which gave me the demo.
I should note this was in mid July trhough August of 2002.
Having had my times of frustration and anger but being mainly interested in good character animation tools I would honestly suggest to bury the past and see what the present (and near future) offers.And it does not look bad at all.
It is clearly visible at the moment that pmg is working hard (released an update tonight) on their product and that the new c4d connection is working, as far as i can sys and (important) that it is being worked on (last update a couple of days ago).
Plus it seems that pmg is trying hard to make us feel comfortable with the companies policy again, build up trust and such.
I respect that.
Personally, i will dabble a little more with the demo (want to test walk designer and armatures in practical use) but am pretty sure right now I will upgrade and jump into M:A again, since my testing with the demo is very encouraging so far…
Olli
As both a C4D and Messiah user I was first miffed at some bugs related to the connection that caused crashes, but the fixes that Ron have made available in a rather good timeframe has fixed some of those issues I was having. Ron has also been very open to looking at any bugs and addressing issues AFAIK. I am in the mist of doing rigging and animation via the connection and while I have had a couple crashes it has worked splendidly and I am definitely more than pleased with it. I would recommend that interested C4D user do try out the demo and remember to read the section on 3rd party support in the docs particularly these 3 known issues
Cheers,
Originally posted by Kaiskai
[B]Ron is very mistaken I have both emails and cgtalk PM’s all on record still all from Ron Griswold. I even recommended other people to test for the C4D connection. He sent me the email with the link which gave me the demo.I should note this was in mid July trhough August of 2002. [/B]
Then I don’t know where everything went south. We wouldn’t knowingly release a product in which we had little confidence. You can’t expect to stay in business by releasing products that you know are ineffective. Besides, it’s just bad kharma.
Communication breakdowns are remarkably easy. That’s what happened with pmG and Maxon, early on. It’s the fact that we’re all kind hearted, reasonable people that we were able to resolve the issues and move past them.
While I definately agree with Olli, It’s all too easy for me to say we should move past the old problems. Just take heart that we never left. We may not have had a presence on this forum, and it may have seem like we disappeard from the C4D universe altogether, but we’ve always been there for you. Hey, these plugins don’t just write themselves overnight:D We’ve invested considerable amounts of time & resources on the messiahC4D connections over this past year.
It was mostly chance that led to the old problems. But chance could be a good thing. It led me to this thread, after all. Without having (inadvertently) started this discussion, I don’t think I would have had the opportunity to promote a better understanding.
Okay, I’m done hijacking this thread:) (my apologies to those expecting a renderer discussion) If you feel you need closure and want to discuss this with me further, feel free to contact me at my projectmessiah.com address.
Thanx for listening,
-lyle
-pmG
lyle…no problem about the thread i think people would rather hear information from the horses mouth so to speak than rumour/speculation and miss-information.
I’m glad you dropped by and responded to obvious issues users have had in the past…i’m always impressed when a company enters into direct discussion on a forum these events are few and far between. i wish both maxon and pmg every success with continued support and development benefitting the C4D community.
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.