![]() I can certainly understand the issues here. The scope of Cinema 4D users is enormous, our customers are working in such a wide variety of fields that i sometimes despair to find things that will help even most, if not all. That's just too much for the price that MAXON is asking and it couldn't have been a worse time to announce the subscription mode. An average C4D studio user now needs to top up with X particles, a decent UV unwrapper like Ryzom, an external render engine, marvellous designer for cloth, maybe Houdini for complex sims.And for any serious modelling HB modelling scripts have become a must have (I am soooooo tired of caps retopo and manually projecting 8-edged splines to create perfect circular cut outs). That's why so many people stick to it despite the limitations.īut it's far from perfect and it now lags behind in too many fields: cloth, dynamics, particles, fluids, symmetry modelling, UV/BP etc. The scope of Cinema 4D users is enormous, our customers are working in such a wide variety of fields that i sometimes despair to find things that will help even most, if not all.Įven if I'm disappointed at this release, I also see lots of cool improvements: the UI is so sleek now, the node editor is the best in the industry, Pro-Render is getting better everyday and definitely usable for commercial still images.Ĭ4D is well thought out and this feature on its own makes the program superior to anything I've tried. Despite all the work we put in we get surprised as well, sometimes on how little what we thought would be a good thing does for the users and sometimes about something we thought to be a small thing turning out to be a lifesaver for some. For me and many coworkers that is an unending source of frustration, to see things that we know will help a lot being dismissed early on, just to be discovered as realy usefull a while later. On the other hand there is an interesting effect that it takes at least a couple of weeks after any release until the positive stories on how this or that new feature or improvement is just what they needed come up. Also often enough they don't see the advantages. It is very likely that many aspects they want to see improved are either not adressed or not in the way they want. ![]() I can totally understand the disappointment many people feel when they see a new version. These are just assumptions but this is how I feel at the moment: I’m less willing to « forgive » when competition is so active. ![]() Maybe because productivity improvements always receive less praise vs new creative tools and features like fields, volumes, poly pen, sculpting etc.Īnd also maybe because old users start losing patience, waiting for long overdue features. 5 must be less than 1 and the effects of the module system that decoupled a lot of major functionality from the core program. In the end i think it was just the feeling that. MoGraph for example was released based on 9.6 and never showed up as a new feature in any main release. Also at the time we had the modul system. 5 version came out 10 years ago i think it is no wonder that many do not remember the actual scope of those releases. I shortened the list since usually it was well over 100 items per release. R 11.5 - MoGraph 2, NLA, New GI, BP R4, SPD, Render Instances, new Picturer Viewer, FBX export improvements R 10.5 - XRefs, DWG, HUD, new modeling functions, interactive lighting, improved UV unwrapping, new Effectors, new Cloning options, substantial Hair speed up R 9.5 - Ambient Occlusion, Color Mapping, Physical Sky, New Content Browser, Area Lights, 32 Bit Rendering, improved baking, PS Layer support, improved particle effectors, Xpresso improvements, incremental saving, Normal Channel R 8.5 - Sketch & Toon, improved material manager, SLA shaders integrated and improved, SSS, Vector MB, new Radisoity mode, Post Effects as layers 5 versions i scratched my head and asked myself what could have prompted such a remark. Since i was intimately involved in the development of all. In many discussions about new Cinema 4D there comes the point where someone points out that this version is more of a.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |