why not cinema 4d?

[Eugen]

Fair enough, good to know.
It's geometry changes though, not generation, that is the issue here, and which shows the shortcomings of the C4D architecture.

Modo lacks an operator stack as well, but has very powerful mesh generation abilities, too, especially with (or maybe just since) the relatively new MeshFusion plugin.

Again, as I said, we can debate if op stacks are of central importance or not, because brilliant work is produced with both C4D or Modo, too, but I am used to a fully procedural workflow from mid-nineties on (3ds max always had topo modidiers, too), and I made use of this countless times, so this means downgrading the workflow, no matter how you look at it.

[noseman]

Fair enough, good to know.
It's geometry changes though, not generation, that is the issue here.

Can you elaborate on the issue?
What are the changes you are referring to?
Sorry if it's a dumb question, I just need to make sure I understand the issue.

[noseman]

For example, if you have a polygon and subdivide it so that the total number of polygons is larger, that is essentially "generating" extra geometry.
Is that was you are reffering to as "changing"?

[Richy]

I like that C4D has XSI "sticky" keys and fast pivot placement. Also new bevel toll, and precise modeling features awesome. And Corona render http://corona-renderer.com for C4d is on the way and it's FREE!

[3D-Django]

Hello,

I hope you don't mind if I join your discussion, as on the one hand I find the different workflows and approaches that are discussed here very interesting and valuable for me as (mainly) a C4D user, and on the other hand I might be able to answer some questions as well and give some insight into the C4D-way of doing things.

Let me introduce briefly: My real name is Günter Nikodim, I've been working with Cinema 4D for 14 years, and now I'm a freelancing 3D generalist working in Vienna. The studio's pipeline I'm collaborating with is also completely C4D-based, and we've just finished some VFX work for an Austrian movie. (Eugen, I gather you're from Vienna too, maybe we could have a beer some time and exchange our C4D-SI-experiences if you're interested?).
I've also had the pleasure to be a beta tester for C4D for over three years now.
With Softimage I have limited experience (I've used 4.2 when I was studying and did some modeling, animation and simulation with it, nothing really advanced though), so I think I know the basic concepts. Really sad to see it going.

Let me try to answer some questions:

You've asked for geometry changes while staying all parametric, and while we don't have a completely non-destructive modeling workflow or operator-stack for polygon modeling, this is to some degree possible with the correction deformer.
This deformer gives you the ability to modify all the points/edges/polygons of a parametrically generated object with the regular polygon modeling tools, without the need to make the object 'editable' and destroying its parametric nature.
This makes it very powerful and I think it hasn't been mentioned yet in this discussion.

You can even add some morphshapes to the correction deformer, and change the topology of the parametric object later.

I want to add that at some point in your workflow, you may need to leave this parametric approach and convert your model to polygons (when it comes to rigging p.ex.), but anyway it allows you to stay parametric for quite some time.
But I guess that's what you'd also do in Softimage, at least when I was working with it I was recommended to 'freeze' my model frequently, but things might have changed since.

Here's a video that shows the correction deformer's abilities (no sound, sorry):



Another thing I want to point out is that C4D's deformers are not only for "trivial", classical polygonal modeling and animation, they're much more powerful than one might expect.

Later I'll show you a quick and simple way how you can use deformers for particle sculpting as well for example, and I think that's what Srek said before when he was talking about C4D becoming more and more flexible and using mograph effectors as deformers and vice versa.

cheers,
Günter

[Eugen]

For example, if you have a polygon and subdivide it so that the total number of polygons is larger, that is essentially "generating" extra geometry.
Is that was you are referring to as "changing"?

I'll try...

A 'generator operator' is one that creates a new scene object from scratch. Some require no inputs whatsoever (except maybe parameters), like primitives. Others process some input objects, like curve extrusions or booleans.

A 'topology operator' changes the 'topology' of an already existing object. That means it changes the number of components, or re-arranges them in some way.
Examples for topo ops: delete components, add vertex, duplicate polygons, split edges, flip edges, bevel, extrude polygons, shell, invert curve, etc.

A 'deform operator' only moves the components around, WITHOUT changing their number or order.

Now, if you keep a ANY operator live (by not freezing it), you'll have access to it's parameters as long as you wish, no matter what happens later in the operator stack.
This flexibility will often be your best friend, but also, as with all powerful concepts, situations can arise that make results somewhat unpredictable.

Like you extruded one polygon of a cube, then change the cube primitive's number of subdivisions. The extrusion op will still work, but it's hard to tell on which polygon.
It won't crash on you, though, and you will see changes interactively.


Changing parameters on generators can lead to topo changes, (subdivisions of the cube primitive), or just to a deformation (cube's side length).
Whereas it is questionable if parameter changes down the stack resulting in topo changes will give feasible results, changes that only result in deformations definitely do!
Having to freeze (make editable) an object will take this level of flexibility from you - which can be vital if you (or your customer) make up your mind at a later state of the design process.

Simple example: cube primitive, bevel all 10 edges, change the cube's length afterwards (please don't nail me again that this can be done otherwise - maybe your cube already has a bevel included - it's just an example!).

Or: look at the example with the sphere segment and thickness that I posted on page 10 of this thread. I can go back anytime, change the radius and angles of the sphere, or the thickness of the shell whenever I like. In this case, I can also change the sphere's subdivisions without trouble.

This goes as far as that you can even change topology of an already rigged character! Add edge loops, for example. Try this in Maya, but put a hat on not to loose some hair...
This is why riggers just love Softimage. There's much more to that chapter, like being able to transfer a character's weights to another via a tool called GATOR (generalized attribute transfer).

Do you get the point now?


Now all of this is just the basics. With ICE the real fun begins.
Here are examples of what you can do with 'ICE modeling' (that's just a name of the capabilities of ICE related to topology changes):
http://vimeo.com/groups/ice/albums/2107
This is parametric 'modeling', or 'mesh generation' par excellence!

In that regards, C4D or Modo are 'second class', regardless of the many good features they have.

No other package except Houdini has this level of flexibility. 3ds max has it's 'modifier stack', which is kind of allright.

Autodesk is now trying to implement this into Maya, too - project Bifröst - but nobody knows if they will succeed with making this 'artis-friendly' and consistent. ICE exists since 6 years now, ICE modeling for 3. Bifröst will also just cater for fluid simulations at first. All this will take (much) time to mature, and it's hard to predict.


Btw. - granted, Maya's scene is built on a DAG (Directional Acyclic Graph), which per se has even more flexibility than Softimage's operator graph, but it is far from being user-friendly at this point.

[Eugen]

Eugen, I gather you're from Vienna too, maybe we could have a beer some time and exchange our C4D-SI-experiences if you're interested?
cheers,
Günter

Hello Günter!
Yes, definitely, that would be nice! I'll contact you privately then, ok?
Thanks,
Eugen

[noseman]

Examples for topo ops: delete components, add vertex, duplicate polygons, split edges, flip edges, bevel, extrude polygons, shell, invert curve, etc.

Thanks for the explanation.
First of all, we have the exact same flexibility with our deformers.
Our Generators also, create a vast majority of shapes using input shapes, spline or polygonal. The modelling workflow in C4D is predominately built on the concept of Generators, combined with splines.
As for the topology operators, Softimage has more, although I believe that we can achieve the majority of the functionality of them using different approaches, but not less intuitive.

I looked at the ICE examples for modelling and have to say I'm impressed. Some of those can be achieved with C4D's internal tools. For example, we have a parametric spline generator called MoSpline that has a built in TURTLE language, and can be used to produce networks, trees and other "Fractal" shapes.

1.
Whereas it is questionable if parameter changes down the stack resulting in topo changes will give feasible results, changes that only result in deformations definitely do!
Having to freeze (make editable) an object will take this level of flexibility from you - which can be vital if you (or your customer) make up your mind at a later state of the design process.

2.
Or: look at the example with the sphere segment and thickness that I posted on page 10 of this thread. I can go back anytime, change the radius and angles of the sphere, or the thickness of the shell whenever I like. In this case, I can also change the sphere's subdivisions without trouble.

3.
This goes as far as that you can even change topology of an already rigged character! Add edge loops, for example. Try this in Maya, but put a hat on not to loose some hair...

Points 1 and 2, are exactly the same in C4D. Same concepts, equivalent workflow, slightly different operators.
As for 3, since I'm not a Character Animator/Rigger, I'm not very sure how easy it is in C4D, although it's doable for sure.
We also have a Mesh Deformer (Shell deformer???) that is a low resolution mesh, that controls the high resolution mesh underneath.

When I find a bit more time, I'll put together a couple of other videos to show more things related to the above.
And if you have a chance go meet with Gunter, he's a great guy and a good friend, and he knows C4D much better than me.

[Eugen]

Trying to be even clearer:
The point I'm trying to get across is NOT generators or deformers - I know these are on eye's height in both application - but topology operators, and keeping them live!

Topo chaning ops (don't know what it's called in C4D): I'm quite sure you have a comparable toolset here, but you cannot keep their parameters live. That, and exactly that, is the point of the discussion, and that's what makes the difference.

If you find the time, I'd be very curious how you would go about that sphere segment example.
But remember: it's not about that particular shape or form, but the parametric modeling approach to it!

Thanks,
Eugen

[Letterbox]

This was an interesting read...

http://forums.cgsociety.org/archive/index.php/t-893642.html

I would hope Srek could add to it here in saying what's changed from 2010 to 2014+.

[3DKiwi]

Re Sphere segments etc. The only thing C4D hasn't got for this example is a thickness modifier / deformer. With a sphere primitive the radius and segments can be changed at any stage and can be animated. A couple of work arounds can be used to add thickness e.g. Boolean or my pick a Cloth object

Below is what I mean with a sphere hemisphere primitive. Radius, segments and thickness can all be changed at any time and can be animated. Further more the Cloth object can change the subdivision of the of the sphere to whatever you like.

[noseman]

and here's a video showing what 3DKiwi said live.

https://vimeo.com/89327537

[Srek]

This was an interesting read...

http://forums.cgsociety.org/archive/index.php/t-893642.html

I would hope Srek could add to it here in saying what's changed from 2010 to 2014+.

Sadly not that much. Thanks to the pretty powerfull XPresso functionality of the new Dynamics the combination of TP and Dynamics offers a lot of possibilities, similar to what was possible before with TP and Hair. You can create forces that make these components interact, it's not a common physics system tough.
The main drawback of TP is still the limited object count, since TP uses object instances for particles.
For many c4d users the need to use nodes to create larger TP setups was a reason to avoid it. It shouldn't be much of an obstacle for XSI users though. Many c4d users prefer XParticles, which relies on the object manager instead.
Cheers
Björn

[Eugen]

and here's a video showing what 3DKiwi said live.

Hehe... you are demonstrating the art of working around - which is a valuable skill in the 3d business for sure... ; )
I could use the same modeling approach like you did, of course - start from a curve arc, generate a lathe (rotational) object from it, then apply the thickness.

But ok, I'll try another one, until I got you to saying: 'heck, yes, we can't do that, because we can't keep topology edits 'live'...

Again, I believe you that you can keep generators and deformers live, because that's the comparatively 'trivial' part. So you can in Softimage, of course.


I'm trying to find the most trivial possible example that demonstrates the usefulness of being able to keep topo-ops 'live' as well...
If something simple like this is possible, then everything is - including the 'high-end'-stuff like characters etc.

Just create a cube, then select all 6 polygons, then extrude them. In SI, this can be done in one single operator ('Extrude Op'), with the 'Merge' parameter unchecked.
Now go back and change the side length of the cube.
I duplicated the cube, and changed the second one's length.

Here's another powerful feature of SI: you can open the PPG (property page - that was the term you were looking for) for multiple equal operators at once, and change them all together.

[Srek]

You picked maybe the single best example that c4d can do in the same way ;)
In c4d you would use the MoExtrude Objetc as a deformer to get the same effect while keeping the setup completely parametric.
My guess here is that there is not much of a fundamental difference but more a difference in which operations are available and how powerfull they are.

[noseman]

and here it is:

https://vimeo.com/89335625