Enhance C4D.... no more for C4D...?


#1

Biomekk site is down… any idea…?

Thanks.


#2

It’s been like this for quite some time


#3

ohhh… for S22 it was…! I wish… it will be back.

Not a good sign as I am seeing many developers quitting or not updating plugins.
enhance c4d, wingen, curiousanimal, add the sea, renato-tarabella and may be many more…!


#4

The add the sea devs are enjoying their well-deserved retirement.


#5

I also thought of Add-the-Sea recently. Wish they had transferred the project to another developer, or made it open source. It was really good.


#6

well yes some did quit, for various reasons…

but quite some plugin creation teams are out there still, old and new.
we at 3dtools are for sure are still available with our tools that we develop for ourselves as c4d users, as well as for all fellow c4d users, check at “www.3dtools.info” in case one is interested.

we are also always open to suggestions for plugins, if they make sense and have a market that pays back the development we might do them. in case drop us an email:)


#7

It’s a fat shame and I’ll be honest, it’s getting on my last nerve.
I’m running R18, R20, R22, and R23. And I have to switch between them daily just to access old work flows for baking.


#8

It isn’t just Cinema 4D. The writing is on the wall everywhere.

Many plug-in developers from all commercial software are seemingly coming to the realization that selling plug-ins to the Blender community is a more profitable venture given the growing userbase.


#9

What I’ve come to realize is that most plugins get obsolete because MAXON eventually integrates the idea (if it is really useful) to the newer release.

Thrausi was a must have in early MoGraph days and got bitten down with the introduction of Voronoi Fracture.
Same with Alvéole.
ARmedia was partially obsolete with the Motion and Object Tracker.

There are many more examples. Those plugins are useful only to users of old releases.
It’s like making tutorials for profit. Eventually it gets outdated.

What seems to be impervious are libraries like GSG LIGHT KIT PRO.


#10

That begs the question, what is taking Maxon so long to acquire insydium?

Maxon acquired Redshift and then Red Giant afterwards for reasons which are still not quite obvious today, other than perhaps to hold as a hostage in the event Adobe elects to cut support for Cineware in AE in favor of Dimensions or whatever Adobe and Allegorithmic are cooking up together.

Surely having X-Particules as a native feature within C4D is logical if not long overdue.

It is only getting that much harder for Maxon to justify $3500 USD for the software.


#11

I don’t know how much people use C4D at gamedev may be I’m the only one…) but if you’ll make plugin such as this one - I’ll take it for sure ;)))


#12

This is lovely and nice idea.
Hope c4d plugin Dev will take a look.


#13

This is already possible in c4d.

Make hair guides as splines.
Make a Sweep with a simple two-point line spline and put the hair generator under it.

You can comb them and edit them later as you like, probably also bake an animation for export.

There is a chance MAXON is already developing this tool with 2 more styles. I sent them the idea in 2020…


#14

Nice tip and I use it sometimes to make really fast hair setup for preview, but there’s no possibility to control a lot of stuff such as: custom hair placement one by one at the places I really need to; no way to use L or J root form to place; really hard to control orientation of form and sizes especially if there’re a lot of already hand placed hairs and etc…


#15

There is a custom hair placement one by one - Add Guides.
What is an L/J root form ?
You are right about the orientation and size, I should tell Maxon about this.

In case anyone is interested in hair cards textures : Fibershop


#16

Sry for my English.
Yeah. We can place it as a single guides - my mistake here.
But after that… it’s still a hair guide not a spline so I need to use sooo much more tools to just tweak it instead of default one move\selection tool. I can’t create loft presets to be able to convert it to hair card on a go (well… with script I can) tweak spline further and etc… The process became so much tedious and time consuming.
image
I’ve already get Fibershop btw ant it’s nice program. +1 for this
There’s another one Hair card tool but this time for Maya. Check it out also:

L|J root - is a custom root form. Not straight one like you’ve generated on example. It’s made for better and natural transition from skin to hair.


#17

Insydium have kept C4D relevant and without them the exodus to Houdini would’ve been even faster. Be careful what you wish for and honestly have some respect for Insydium. Why do you think Maxon have the right to acquire X-Particles and have you not considered how much damage this would actually do to you in the long run?

Do you really want X-Particles to suffer the same fate as Redshift? Before Redshift was acquired there were updates every week if not multiple times a week. Now look at the development. Maxon is the crap Midas, everything they touch turns to shit.

Prices are kept low by competition and an independent Insydium is good for competition. Every single day their existence reminds the customer base what an overpriced bag of shite C4D is with no decent renderer and no modern particle or fluid tools.

If Maxon buy Insydium where will the downward pressure on pricing come from? Maxon have already moved you all to subscriptions so you can’t just say I’ll stick with my current version thanks. Redshift hasn’t been included in C4D as the standard renderer as many predicted so why would anyone expect X-Particles to be included at no extra cost?

Surely the correct response to Maxon is why the fook have you not replaced Thinking Particles and why are there no native fluid sim tools? Why not ask Mcgavran or Srek why C4D languished behind every other 3D DCC? Why should you have to pay for expensive 3rd party tools to help a very tired looking App with a particle system that’s over a decade old?

If you’re missing a plugin, ProTip: Learn Houdini.


#18

I think MAXON does not provide a fluid simulator for the same reason Realflow does not provide something similar to MoGraph.

It has been mentioned in this forum many times before that C4Ds features are focused mainly for Motion Graphics. Any kind of fluid or fire simulation is considered special FX.

So far the Xpesso Particle system has shown that many things are possible with it, from tornados to shapeshifting. That is quite FX. But if people can’t handle it they can go for Trapcode.

C4D has many open fronts because it tries to be a multitool. This inevitably leads to some decrease in development momentum. It’s not easy to develop the tools C4D provides. If MAXON were to have all features at state-of-the-art level it would have to hire a lot of expert people so they could work in groups for each feature separately and not focus them from one feature to an other each time. That move would definitely increase the cost of the app.

Every app has their own crowd. People who want something fast to learn and use they use C4D. People who want to do movies for MARVEL and Disney use Houdini.

And cost is also a feature, Houdini FX costs $6,995 USD perpetual + $795 USD for the HOUDINI ENGINE/year where C4D costs $4262 USD + $500 for Redshift all for a perpetual licence. Maxon One (C4D, Redshift, Red Giant Complete) costs 1,499/year.

So far Maxon doesn’t have tools for the following : Procedural modeling (until next release), some AE features, fluid/fire/sand/snow simulation, Terrain formations, accurate sky simulation, 4D objects, Fractals, and the ability to read minds.


#19

@demis I think you must be the ideal maxon customer your ability justify being served a hot turd is admirable. Thinking Particles is absolutely amazing if you like a single threaded limited particle system from nearly 20 years ago! Next year you’ll be able to celebrate the 20th birthday of TP in C4D. WOW!

Maxon doesn’t provide fluid sims because it’s a mograph focussed application then in almost the next breath you’re saying that maxon can’t be expected to keep their application up to date because it tries to be a multitool. So what is C4D, Mograph or a Generalist app? TurbulenceFD has always been a hugely popular plugin for Mograph artists because of this huge hole in the C4D workflow.

What do you see in the video, Mograph or VFX?

https://vimeo.com/333505787

You are quite wrong, Houdini has become the destination for high end Mograph and all of the studios which I followed who were C4D studios have switched. Over the course of 5 years my Vimeo feed when from entirely C4D based projects to Houdini. The scope and aesthetics of Mograph has been changed by the adoption of Houdini.

BTW, The scene nodes preview won’t get any switchers back.

I own HoudiniFX R16 but now thanks to covid I qualify for the Indie license for $200/yr. I can use this legally due to it having an extremely generous license and SideFX know that if business returns to normal I’ll happily buy a full license again. Their support of the perpetual license extends across many years too. To compare Houdini to C4D is like comparing a modern Tesla car to a Model T Ford, the only similarity is they have four wheels.

Then there’s Bl*nder now backed by the biggest companies on the planet, they’re awash with funding and can’t get developers in quick enough. Their Geometry Nodes system is shaping up to be an extremely potent Mograph toolset that will be complete long before C4D’s Project Neutron or whatever it’s called. Already in one development cycles Geometry Nodes can be used for many complex Mograph tasks and data visualisation.

It won’t just be C4D plugin devs that have closed up shop and moved on, the Mograph artists with ambitions to push their art to new levels will go to Houdini and those artists and companies sick of paying $1500/yr for an App that needs copious additional expensive plugins to make it viable will look to a FREE alternative in Bl*nder. Once Blender Mograph examples start flooding social media and vimeo watch what happens. Will people want to continue to pay for Redshift when they can use Cycles which is now as fast as Redshift on Ampere or the amazing Eevee which has become viable for production output and when it gets ray tracing in the near future the pull will be too great for even the most committed maxon customers. $1500/yr + XP is a lot of money to a lot of people after covid.

You’re right every App does have its own crowd but that only happens when that App owns the mindshare of its user base. The Mograph mindshare has moved at the high end and more of the mid level mindshare will move to Bl*nder and once it moves it rarely comes back, ask Newtek.

Years of stagnating development has gifted Houdini and Bl*nder with opportunities they never should’ve been given.


#20

C4D started as a multitool. When it released MoGraph it hit a sweet spot. Since then any other already implemented feature when updated - or a new feature was introduced - was to compliment MoGraph. And MoGraph does go well with all other aspects of the app.

The video is VFX.

Stop being a totalitarian. Just because HoudiniFX fits you doesn’t mean it fits for all. It’s like saying that anyone who uses CorelDraw or Affinity Designer or any other app should drop it and use Adobe Designer or Inkscape. Some people do their job with C4D because it does what they need and they don’t expect from it nothing more because their job does not require nothing more from them.

I’m not interested in fluid/gas simulations at the time so I rarely use TP. Probably most users aren’t either.

To use Houdini in its max potential one must have a specific education to cope with it, not everyone has that knowledge.(I’m talking about programming) The same applies to C4D also. Python appears as an Effector, a Generator, Xpresso Node, in Character Component, as a Field, and a Python Tag … it’s everywhere, just because most people here don’t know how to use it to produce something more extreme it doesn’t mean C4D is not capable of good FX. Plugins developers are exactly those kind of users capable of using C4D to its max potential. Instead of releasing their native C4D files for everyone to use they decided to write a plugin, it’s their right to do so if they wish. I’m not an expert user but I understand when a plugin uses tools already available in the interface. Forester uses MoSplines, Terraform uses Fields, Nitrolast used booleans with Fracture, Roll It is a Bend with offset angle - basically a Spline Warp on a Spiral, Transform uses Xpresso, Unfolder uses Xpresso, Magic Snow used TP with metaballs…

The reason C4D has an ecosystem of commercial plugins is because Maxon gave that option. You think Houdini would be better if they gave their users the option to hide their code (searched and could’t find any)? The only paid plugins available for Houdini are interoperation for communication with other applications like Redshift or UR4, everything else is just open. It’s not Maxon’s fault its users aren’t that generous (and there are a lot of free plugins and Xpresso setups out there).

Many more plugins will become obsolete when Scene Nodes get released. But I think that people will still make plugins out of those nodes, especially if Maxon decides to implement a system to hide 3rd party inner mechanics . It was they who mentioned a sharing system for users and a potential protection system for plugin developers. And still people will buy those plugins because most of them will not engage on learning Scene Nodes for various reasons I feedbacked to Shrek.