I am really disappointed that cycles 4D is no longer available as a separate product. If you need all their tools, I’m sure insidiums products are really neat (although their fluid plug-in now no longer supports viewport visualization in s24 since maxon moved to direct x on windows and metal on mac).
Paying subscription for Cinema 4D is one thing, paying that enormous subscription- $992- for the insidium group subscription is another.
The C4D eco system has got very expensive if you’re a hobbyist and these software subscriptions soon add up if your business is dealing with the fallout of covid, some sectors are still very depressed and some companies have discovered they can get away with paying a lot less for 3d work.
I briefly looked at the ‘Fused’ thing and it was as clear as mud, I think XP is the only plugin which has a perpetual element. It seems an odd thing to do for a ‘fused’ package.
I find it crazy that the first thing someone has to do after buying or renting C4D is have to shell out for a modern particle system and a production quality renderer. If Maxon was doing its job there should be no need for Insydium. I used XP since v2.0 and thought it would be a stop-gap until a native particle system arrived but TBH I never used much of the the features beyond 2.5. Latter updates have a lot of features that make pretty demos but in production I never found I needed much more than an emitter, a few effectors and the odd collider. Xplosia is absolutely dreadful and the liquid sims are limited by C4D’s awful cache playback and found them impossible to use in production.
Perhaps there has been a drop off in yearly upgrades which has pushed Insydium into offering everything as a job lot to generate more interest? Maybe Maxon has finally managed to squirt out a native particle system in the next release and this prompted the move to ‘Fused’ to give the impression of greater value for XP?
If you’re only interested in Cycles4D you’re completely hosed though. As good as Cycles-X is (and it is really very good) I wouldn’t pay for the whole Fused package just to get a renderer.
Yeah, it’s really a shame
To me this all would make the most sense, if Insydium knew that R25 will include a decend rendering option, or as you said, a particle system. Particle system is not unrealistic, maybe part of the geometry nodes? But inclusion of redshift makes even more sense to me. The renderer is the biggest weakness at the moment, and they own a capable one. Sure, Redshift just went sub only, but this doesn’t change to much regarding that possibility. They would have to transform licenses/subscriptions somehow, and the less perpetuals are out there, the easier would this move be.
I think a node based particle system based on the Scene Nodes system is the most likely thing. A particle system is just a distribution system that you move with forces so I can see this coming sooner rather than later. It wouldn’t need such a system to be 1:1 feature complete with XParticles to be useful for 95% of users so even in an early version state it could hit XP’s market.
One clear advantage a native particle system would have would be running on the new scene graph which should mean it could handle vastly higher particle numbers. As an FYI Blender’s node based particle system which was paused so they could concentrate on Geometry Nodes was around 6x faster than XP on my machine. I could generate 6x the particles for the same frame rate it was almost as fast as Houdini’s particle system which is the performance benchmark.
So, if Maxon has their own new particle system ready expect them to crow about the performance, it should be able to cope with vastly greater numbers of particles than XP which could be a big selling point or a big enough reason for people not to continue with their XP subscription.
Late July/Early August is normally when the latest C4D version is announced so maybe not long to wait?