Page 19 of 19 FirstFirst ... 9171819
Results 271 to 282 of 282

Thread: Why C4D?!?

  1. #271
    Registered User hazmat777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    616
    Although this article is about one of the "big two" camera companies and not CG, it still has relevance (in my opinion) to what a lot of us are feeling. Especially the last three paragraphs.

    http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/...rsus-what.html
    "I don't have it... you want half my omelette?"

  2. #272
    Electron wrangler jwiede's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    6,511
    Quote Originally Posted by Wickedpup View Post
    Considering the topic and speaking of comparisons......
    http://myleniumblog.com/2014/11/02/m...other-version/
    If he'd provided any sort of solid quantified data to back up his qualitative comments (even for stuff like render perf, which is both doable and useful), I'd probably be a lot less skeptical of those qualitative opinions (esp. when they differ from my own experiences). Calling it a "comparison" without providing hardly any quantitative data points (to support independent review of qualitative conclusions) feels like pretty weak sauce, IMO.
    John W.
    LW2015.3UB/2019.1.4 on MacPro(12C/24T/10.13.6),32GB RAM, NV 980ti

  3. #273

    jwiede, you know i can't do that without derailing this thread into infinity...

    ...wish i could take that sentence back...
    LW vidz   DPont donate   LightWiki   RHiggit   IKBooster   My vidz

  4. #274
    Electron wrangler jwiede's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    6,511
    Quote Originally Posted by erikals View Post
    jwiede, you know i can't do that without derailing this thread into infinity...
    Huh? I wasn't speaking about you at all, I was referring to Mylenium making statements about perf. etc. but didn't actually provide any test results to support them. He could have easily done so, esp. if the disparity is so great as he suggests. If you're going to make those kinds of statements (not referring to you specifically, Erikals, but in general) in a "published comparison", then at least provide some actual, repeatable test data to back it up -- esp. when doing so shouldn't be difficult (such as for his render perf. comments). Worth doing if only because that way readers can understand if the author's test scenarios are relevant to their usage, or not. Without test scenarios and results, the relevance of the scenarios is unknown, and so the qualitative statements lack context and basis.
    Last edited by jwiede; 11-13-2014 at 01:34 PM.
    John W.
    LW2015.3UB/2019.1.4 on MacPro(12C/24T/10.13.6),32GB RAM, NV 980ti

  5. #275
    Super Member jburford's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Frankfurt
    Posts
    908
    Quote Originally Posted by jwiede View Post
    If he'd provided any sort of solid quantified data to back up his qualitative comments (even for stuff like render perf, which is both doable and useful), I'd probably be a lot less skeptical of those qualitative opinions (esp. when they differ from my own experiences). Calling it a "comparison" without providing hardly any quantitative data points (to support independent review of qualitative conclusions) feels like pretty weak sauce, IMO.

    Have to agree fully, feel a lot of the so called comparison is pulled out of the air. Also asked a few other users to look over the "comparison" and this is what one of the power users had to say in response of.


    (Quoted Response)
    I agree with him on some parts of the modelling, there are some situations where certain hierarchies can cause dynamic objects and scripts to lag behind because they are executed in the wrong order, but thats a) pretty rare (he makes it sound like this is a day to day problem) and b) very easy to fix, you just drag one object above another in most cases.

    Performance and stability, I'm not sure where he pulled some of that stuff from, it isnt even vaguely founded in reality. Yes, c4d's tools are somewhat threaded, but causing data corruption because a tool crashed? Sorry, that has never happened to me once in 15 years of using c4d daily and nor have I ever heard of it happening. The software either crashes or it doesn't. Most of the time people claim c4d has crashed, it hasnt, it has just locked up because theyve asked it to do something insane like generate 200 million polys and collision detection. Often just hitting escape and waiting a few moments will coax it back to life. As far as actually crashing, my last one was over a year ago. In an alpha test version. As far as FBX im/export crashing, that's autodesk's code. That would be like blaming AE for crashing whilst saving as quicktime because apple's QT lib code fell over.

    Colouring, I dont see what he means with c4d's icons having inconsistent colours, they all stick pretty rigidly to a set of rules; yellow for tools, orange for commands, green for generators, purple for deformers etc. Im pretty hard pressed to think of anything thats the wrong colour. The only colour issue I have is c4d's lack of contrast (seriously, black icons on a dark grey background, stop that crap)

    Modo can have unlimited types of windows whilst c4d is limited to 4 of each (eg timelines).... thats grasping a bit for something to critisize isnt it? Who in their right mind needs 5 timeline windows open?

    Caching physics, he claims "it isnt there", I dont understand his intent. I can cache hair, cloth, bullet dynamics and particles by clicking the cache button, the only thing I cant easily cache is thinking particles, but honestly if youre that into particles, youll be using xparticles.

    Overall, it isnt terrible, but it does read more as a "lets find some things modo does better than c4d" article than a realistic comparison.
    __________________
    Matthew O'Neill
    www.3dfluff.com

  6. #276
    Registered User tyrot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    in lights
    Posts
    2,167
    I gotta admit - C4D's - UI is really amazing...

  7. #277
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Ghana West Africa
    Posts
    849
    Quote Originally Posted by jburford View Post
    Have to agree fully, feel a lot of the so called comparison is pulled out of the air. Also asked a few other users to look over the "comparison" and this is what one of the power users had to say in response of.


    (Quoted Response)
    I agree with him on some parts of the modelling, there are some situations where certain hierarchies can cause dynamic objects and scripts to lag behind because they are executed in the wrong order, but thats a) pretty rare (he makes it sound like this is a day to day problem) and b) very easy to fix, you just drag one object above another in most cases.

    Performance and stability, I'm not sure where he pulled some of that stuff from, it isnt even vaguely founded in reality. Yes, c4d's tools are somewhat threaded, but causing data corruption because a tool crashed? Sorry, that has never happened to me once in 15 years of using c4d daily and nor have I ever heard of it happening. The software either crashes or it doesn't. Most of the time people claim c4d has crashed, it hasnt, it has just locked up because theyve asked it to do something insane like generate 200 million polys and collision detection. Often just hitting escape and waiting a few moments will coax it back to life. As far as actually crashing, my last one was over a year ago. In an alpha test version. As far as FBX im/export crashing, that's autodesk's code. That would be like blaming AE for crashing whilst saving as quicktime because apple's QT lib code fell over.

    Colouring, I dont see what he means with c4d's icons having inconsistent colours, they all stick pretty rigidly to a set of rules; yellow for tools, orange for commands, green for generators, purple for deformers etc. Im pretty hard pressed to think of anything thats the wrong colour. The only colour issue I have is c4d's lack of contrast (seriously, black icons on a dark grey background, stop that crap)

    Modo can have unlimited types of windows whilst c4d is limited to 4 of each (eg timelines).... thats grasping a bit for something to critisize isnt it? Who in their right mind needs 5 timeline windows open?

    Caching physics, he claims "it isnt there", I dont understand his intent. I can cache hair, cloth, bullet dynamics and particles by clicking the cache button, the only thing I cant easily cache is thinking particles, but honestly if youre that into particles, youll be using xparticles.

    Overall, it isnt terrible, but it does read more as a "lets find some things modo does better than c4d" article than a realistic comparison.
    __________________
    Matthew O'Neill
    www.3dfluff.com
    Another funny one that almost got me confused was, "C4D has limited undo"
    For a moment I thought he was referring to LW
    Don't know how came to that conclusion but I can undo pretty much everything I do in C4D, even selections and UI elements.

  8. #278
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    uk
    Posts
    180
    Quote Originally Posted by tyrot View Post
    I gotta admit - C4D's - UI is really amazing...
    I just hope the interface designers are allowed to be more brave for LW12 by management and not scared to upset certain users stuck in the past. The interface really is stuck in the late 90s/early 2000s and obviously so. It can still look like Lightwave whilst being allowed to have a major rethink and design of the UI.

  9. #279
    Registered User tyrot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    in lights
    Posts
    2,167
    motiva - when matt jumped on board.. i thought things will be more cleaner - but i guess there is so much other work to complete first.. Because we all know he is very good.. on UI things..

  10. #280
    Electron wrangler jwiede's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    6,511
    Quote Originally Posted by jburford View Post
    Overall, it isnt terrible, but it does read more as a "lets find some things modo does better than c4d" article than a realistic comparison.
    I agree with your friend on nigh-all points. While I agree with Mylenium on quite a few details, he definitely fell prey to overstating (or in a couple cases, seemingly making up) problems for C4D, while understating/omitting modo's issues in the same area.

    C4D absolutely does have command logging, just like modo. It isn't as obvious (bc you only really need it when (re-)programming GUI/UX elements to trigger commands), but it is there. Likewise, I too was mystified by his undo and caching comments, as I can do both at least as easily in C4D as modo.

    As for crashing/stability, from R12 onwards C4D has been incredibly solid here. I can't recall the last time it crashed that wasn't explicitly due to 3rd-party beta plugins or equivalent testing-grade code. I find modo 801 is much less stable than C4D R14/15 (though IME still substantially more stable than Lightwave 11.6.x). I don't have enough time logged on C4D R16 to have a good sense of stability yet for it, but thus far it is living up to my expectations (that it will be at least as stable as R15).

    Overall, modo has come a long ways, and I agree with Mylenium that it surpasses C4D R15/16 in a number of 3D feature/workflow areas. I believe modo offers one of, if not the, best value-for-money ratios in 3D today, on par with or slightly better than C4D's ratio (substantially better than Lightwave's ratio). That said, the extra money spent on C4D yields a number of very valuable attributes, chief among them stability, and I found Mylenium's comments about C4D "pseudo-stability" compared to modo to be a cop-out -- IMO, it was as if he needed to find a stability problem for C4D, couldn't really versus modo, and so contrived one into existence.

    Ultimately, modo and C4D (and Lightwave, for that matter) are all capable, feature-rich 3D packages, and I am in no way suggesting otherwise. My issue is more that Mylenium positioned the article as a (objective) product comparison, yet the article contained little objective info being compared.
    Last edited by jwiede; 11-14-2014 at 11:38 AM.
    John W.
    LW2015.3UB/2019.1.4 on MacPro(12C/24T/10.13.6),32GB RAM, NV 980ti

  11. #281
    ----
    sorry, mis-read

    maybe not so strange, considering my comments on page 18 :°
    Last edited by erikals; 11-14-2014 at 01:15 PM.
    LW vidz   DPont donate   LightWiki   RHiggit   IKBooster   My vidz

  12. #282
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    uk
    Posts
    180
    Quote Originally Posted by tyrot View Post
    motiva - when matt jumped on board.. i thought things will be more cleaner - but i guess there is so much other work to complete first.. Because we all know he is very good.. on UI things..
    Yes. I remember his mock-ups many years ago. He is a good UI designer and I hope management allow him to shine, but I understand its a team effort and no doubt coding design an implemenation issues to resolve first to allow for a better User Interface.

Page 19 of 19 FirstFirst ... 9171819

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •