Still, this type of thing is not good at all for weakening the Autodesk monopoly, as a great amount of press on one thing after a year of development is often a sign of a dying application (for example, Newtek dedicating 90 percent of Lightwave’s 2018 release log to a new renderer). Tiem to learn to blow up things in Houdini. Sounds silly, but I want to run Houdini in full-screen mode and remove the top title bar. Which I found a tad surprising, since it is the industry standard tool for heavy-duty CG effects. I think someone here mentioned it reminded them of 2.79 Blender. It feels old-fashioned, and convenient stuff that I am used to in Blender or C4D just isn’t available in Houdini. And Houdini’s GUI is pretty outdated in places. I really miss Blender’s viewport - Houdini’s viewport is rather limited. No 3d app is the holy grail.ītw, since I am learning Houdini, couple of observations. Blender is actually an improvement in many areas.
I am only working with C4D because my work allows access to it, and for certain jobs I have to open files in it.Īs a generalist hobbyist I would never invest in C4D, however.
It seems they want to offer a simplified Houdinized Cinema4D, which might work.īut since R17 the updates have been rather thin.Īnd for what is on offer, my opinion is that it is too expensive. But I am unsure what Maxon management’s intention is with their new direction. With Pro-Render they invested time, energy, and cost and decided to discontinue PR, even though it had never been properly integrated in the first place. It gives you the feeling that C4D is in a perpetual state of beta-ness. Redshift is the obvious choice, but even RS STILL isn’t completely integrated into their own Cinema4D package.Īnd then there’s another recurrent thing with Cinema4D: when new features are finally introduced, most are never considered production ready yet (Maxon will stated this with geometry nodes, with Pro-Render, with the new capsule feature now). It means you will have to pay extra on top of an already quite hefty upkeep to get a decent competitive rendering option. When you buy into Cinema4D, you effectively are also forced to get a third-party render engine, because Physical Render is severely outdated and slow as heck. Same with sculpting, same with modeling, same with UV tools, same with particle effects, and worse: Maxon could have been Substance, if they had poured even a little bit of development effort into it. But it never got the attention it deserved, and at some point Substance and other competitors took the throne in the industry. But modeling certainly is not its strong suit.Īnd the main issue with C4D’s development has always been that the developers would introduce a brilliant new feature for the time, but then allow to let it whither.įor example, Body Paint was forward thinking for its time. Yes, some things are really easy and effective. The GUI is very configurable.īut the workflow is also (and I agree with here) rather clunky and inefficient. It has a logical workflow, and of course MoGraph. The foremost advantage of Cinema4D has always been its interface. But I stepped away from AutoDesk a long time ago (14 years now). The current ones that I still use either professionally at work or at home are Blender, Cinema4D, LightWave, Modo, and now I am learning Houdini.
0 kommentar(er)
