Bellsey wrote:Flame absolutely has its place, but it's more suited in a certain environment. Smoke is alot more attractive now that it's on the Mac and its new price.
How does Maxon compare in size with the M&E of Autodesk? Rather smaller company? All business books say that very large company becomes slow in innovation because of bureaucracy. Don't know if that's the case. Just wondering ...Maximus wrote:Its quite amusing to see almost everyone working and developing something new, exciting, usefull..everyone except AD that always doesnt miss to disappoint its userbase with poor releases of the whole Media and Entertainment suite. I wonder how much time it has to pass to have a decent release from AD.
I'd rather see the day, when AD stops neglecting the fact, that many small studios and freelancers don't use AD software for compositing, but for example nuke, that has great interoperability through alembic, sadly AD rather enhances FBX because it´s an AD format, instead implementing abc. Again, one of the real improvements for softimage has to be bought from third parties...Bellsey wrote:I'd much rather see what can be done with greater interop between Maya/Soft and Flame, or more importantly, Smoke.Bullit wrote: What about that Fxtree?
I use often 3dsmax and have to disagree. 3ds Max doesn't give any edge except in some architectural viz.also gives me the impression that as a out of the box tool, ready for all kinds of work, 3ds Max still have the edge as you can do motion graphics with it, it has nice dynamics, simulations and effects, some nice modeling and rendering
Well, it seems it still doesn't have even basic functions of Cinema, for example, ability for text indexing. That is, in Cinema, each letter can behave as individual particle (so letter "i" is one element, not two) - all that non-destructively, you can enter another text bellow. In short, in Cinema, I'm able to create the entire setup for all accompanying mograph of some daily-weekly video stuff... and forget it. Later, After Effects people are able to do all small changes if needed.ojo3D wrote: EDIT: One thing I get from this Maxon deal is that they are going to focus a lot in Motion Graphics, but it also gives me the impression that as a out of the box tool, ready for all kinds of work, 3ds Max still have the edge as you can do motion graphics with it, it has nice dynamics, simulations and effects,
well you can focus on Softimage ICE Imho, ICE is most attractive of these node-based, procedural systems. Once you are familiar with one, no big deal to switch to another.ojo3D wrote:I stand corrected! =]
Been playing with the text tool of Cinema and it's quite cool. And been reading a thread in CGSociety witch has 20 pages (omg). But it's being nice as I have discovered some tips in it.
Probably I'll focus more on Cinema for now, as I'm learning it faster. But I do like this forum like no other.
CHeers.
Hirazi Blue wrote:Question: does anyone of you have any experience with the sculpting capabilities of Cinema 4D? I'm thinking of buying the base package for its "inner Bodypaint" to possibly replace 3D Coat. Voxel sculpting never was my thing. But I want to know, if the C4D sculpting works well. I know dedicated software would be better, but I simply can't afford many applications.
Well, I've been playing with almost all 3D softwares. I'm trying to decide witch one to focus. My main goal is to do freelance work here in Brazil. All kinds of work, but mainly motion graphics because the market is big. But I also want to tap into Archviz and Product Visualization and Advertising. Since I'll be freelancing, more jobs/markets means more money. But if you ask what my main goal is, I would say that in the future, if my freelance becomes a company, I would like to create short films, like "Morris Lessmore" or work with VFX.Mathaeus wrote:well you can focus on Softimage ICE Imho, ICE is most attractive of these node-based, procedural systems. Once you are familiar with one, no big deal to switch to another.
