This looks like a treath that turnd out to be a little cinema vs. 3dsm. I am a 3dsmax user, so when I was reading about Cinema (8xl) in 3dworld I was like : :eek:
Cinema had really got some advance stuff, rendering, particels u name it. Now that I see the new max6 feature list I can see that max is “better” in the feature list. So the next thing that will happend is that c4d get some great stuff in ver.9 and will be better then max and then hopefully max7 will be better then c4d…
The C4D Renderer vs The Rest!
ostov
#41
thorn3d
#42
It will always be a game of leapfrog between all the apps, but the max6 features aren’t much to get excited about…
thorn
sad
#43
on the other hand, c4d´s hypernurbs are nurbs as is. that´s was and is maxons long time nurbs-policy.:shrug:
ostov
#44
Originally posted by neverwake
[B]It will always be a game of leapfrog between all the apps, but the max6 features aren’t much to get excited about…thorn [/B]
I have to agree with u there, but realflow and MR are pretty big. The vertex painter is great to, but u guys got bodypaint as stand-alone. Check this one out http://www.discreet.com/3dsmax/tutorials.html
I dont wanne turn this out to be a flamewar:shame:
ostov
#46
Thirdeye:
http://mtlstream02.discreet.com/streaming/ms/mental_ray_150k.wmv
http://mtlstream02.discreet.com/streaming/qt/mental_ray_150k.mov
They dont do a very close look there, but they show u some stuff like that a Hdri image can do the lighting, the caustics and a bit from the shades for MR.
Dude, get on msn 
thorn3d
#47
Originally posted by ostov
[B]I have to agree with u there, but realflow and MR are pretty big. The vertex painter is great to, but u guys got bodypaint as stand-alone.
Realflow is nice, yes. MR is good, but you’ll pay dearly to net render it. The other additions are minor at best.
thorn
flingster
#48
Originally posted by Kaiskai
What I"d really like though is a good npr system, I’m not a big photoreal guy in the first place.
yes this would be very nice indeed…i’m with ya there buddy.
sad: its not that i want a bridge in particular i just can’t get my head around why we don’t seem to have one…or any plans to create on just seemed strange really…
by the sounds of peoples input possibly a PRMan one but everybody seems to prefer spending development funds and time on improving AR component in priority to any bridge.
Originally posted by AdamT
[B]My take on it is that there wouldn’t be much market for a render engine bridge. If anything, Maxon should look to improve AR to make Cinema a more attractive option for Max, Maya, etc. users. To that end they should address a number of issues:
- subpixel displacement;
- better/faster motion blur;
- much faster area shadows;
- soft shadow caching;
- NPR system;
- SSS;
- two-point perspective;
- dof;
- improved GI (speed and quality).
[/B]
definitely sold me bud…where do i sign…i would like all this…but then who wouldn’t! also from a cost point of view far more cost benefit to the user as opposed to switching to PRMan. also as JamesMK points out a flexible shader programming interface similar to renderman sl would be very sweet and could probably be done in conjunction with some of the other developments we would like to see.
also add to this equation illab’s suggestions of special cameras(fisheye etc), dispersion of transparent materials, translucence channel, saturation adjustment for reflections, bucket rendering…we would be turning industry heads faster than you can say finding nemo! feature additions like all the above just make my mouth water with anticipation…
from a personal point of view i only ever do still work and dabble ever so slightly in the animation/ca side of things i would much prefer development on AR than CA…but this is personal choice and depends on the requirements of individual cinema users uses…so i don’t have any trouble with guys wanting ca updates…but surely this is what we just had…and with the introduction of mb etc…i would seem rather one sided in development terms if my needs were overlooked for another release of ca tools? dunno again this is purely personal and maxon are less interested in my single license usage and more interested in corporate multi license sites i would think. like illab one of the major reasons for my buying c4d was its renderer (obviously added to stability etc). So Olli hopefully you see my pain also…i know what you mean by timeline and control…but i don’t animate the scene so i want renderer development…as you say its a total conflict of interest.
i mean how would people feel as we now have this modularisation that the AR module got these updates and then the price went up for that module then you can decide to buy it or not…i mean at the moment i wouldn’t have a choice i can’t go for another renderer if i wanted to realisticly and I also don’t have the options above available to me…either way it just seems i lose out…i’m not saying c4d renderer is bad…cos i thinks its rockin’ but if a prman license costs 3000 per node then thats steep admittedly but look what you get…maybe a compromise like raising the price of AR but still delivering integration and c4d method of working is an acceptable compromise if you get the feature set you would not have to look else where would you? dunno let me know if you thinks its rubbish…you would object to paying more…
btw loving the discussion and glad people feel something about the issue and we are not beginning to stagnate in a pool of 3d slush!
paintbox
#49
I quite like the renderer as it is. Most things you need on a day-to-day basis are there. I got CE+ and quite frankly I don’t need any more. I also think C4D renders can compete with the best in the right hands.
Not that I am against any improvement of any kind 
… but I think the modeling, workflow wise, in C4D can be improved foremost. (I won’t mention the N-word hehe) Also maybe the idea’s of the mesh-surgery plug-in incorporated in the basic version.
** EDIT ** I do agree with the camera distortion correction, this is a very important feature to have for all those architectural visualisations
lllab
#50
actually for me the most- most- most important things would be:
special cameras,
good toon and technical illustration system npr,
node based shader tree system
i would give a bunch of money for that!
but of course all the above mentioned things are also very important.
cheers
stefan
lllab
michaeli
#51
Originally posted by ThirdEye_01
…What do Mray and Prman offer more than our renderer? Basically … and the possibility to code shaders. …
Maybe I’m wrong, but I think our renderer could code shaders too. For example, there’s an AO shader which use COFFEE. Of course, a easy-to-learn-and-code shading script is better.
BTW, Ditool1 has provided a simple vector shading script, though very simple, but easy to learn and to use. I’d like to see something like that in the future C4D.
stew
#52
Yes, you can write full-blown shaders for C4D, the API is there. But it’s not as easy to use as the RenderMan Shading Language or SLIM. Also, you need a C compiler to use it, where all the RenderMan renderers I know of ship with a shader compiler.
pit
#53
severe micropolygonitis
Have you got something nice cooking, stew? Hope I spoiled your surprise;)
LucentDreams
#54
Originally posted by stew
Yes, you can write full-blown shaders for C4D, the API is there. But it’s not as easy to use as the RenderMan Shading Language or SLIM. Also, you need a C compiler to use it, where all the RenderMan renderers I know of ship with a shader compiler.
yep this is the main issue, writing a simple shader as opposed to writing plugins. One thing people should take note of if you want to try coding shaders for C4D without the compiling troubles andsuch, I believe Paul has released (Iknow he made one for sure, just not sure if its publicly available to everyone) a shader that basically you paste code into and viola a new shader.
tjnyc
#55
Doesn’t DiTools now have a Coffee shader tool?
Maybe in ver. 9 we will have Expresso support for shader creation similiar to how it is done in XSI, Houdini and Messiah Studio.
flingster
#56
coffee shader in ditools…cool forgot all about that…good point.
i’ve got something i forgot to ask you guys…
Would you like to be able render to AI files?
being as we have all those multi-pass option already and AE projects…how come we can’t render to illustrator…this would be useful wouldn’t it?
:shrug:
LucentDreams
#57
Originally posted by flingster
[B]coffee shader in ditools…cool forgot all about that…good point.i’ve got something i forgot to ask you guys…
Would you like to be able render to AI files?
being as we have all those multi-pass option already and AE projects…how come we can’t render to illustrator…this would be useful wouldn’t it?
:shrug: [/B]
one word for you “VECTOR” thats why. renderin 3d to vector is a lot more difficult then seperating passes in a render. It’ll come, but don’t count on it soon, I mean we still don’t have decent flash output 
pit
#58
how come we can’t render to illustrator…this would be useful wouldn’t it?
There is a plugin on Plugincafe by Thomas Zeier: EpsAndEx. It exports Illustrator Eps files.
Cheers
flingster
#59
yeah i know about vector and the ole eps exporter i was just talking native would be really sweet touch imho…
do any other renderers have it that you know of?