3D Modelling for beginners & nMP

[handsome pete]

I am? did you read the first post I wrote?

----------



answer this one question.. yes or no

do you (personally) build things which you've designed on a computer ?

I have. Designed and remodeled 2 rooms of my house using Maya.

That is *exactly* why we recommend it. Zbrush made that sick poly/vertex planing irrelevant.

But it's not irrelevant. Suggesting someone ignore some of the basic tenets of modeling that they'd fine in countless other pieces of software doesn't make much sense.

----------

followed up by my first question of

"do you want to make 'real' models or computer graphics which look like real things but aren't necessarily accurate?"

While I agree that CAD would be a better tool for what you're suggesting, I'm still not sure where you're coming from with the accuracy stuff. Most, if not all, of these programs use real world units of measurement that can be maneuvered and placed in a precise location with accuracy to several decimal points.

Hell, with the physical sky simulator in C4D I can design a home, place it in its real world longitude and latitude and see how the sunlight shines through the front windows at a certain time of the year, down to the second.

 

[flat five]

I have. Designed and remodeled 2 rooms of my house using Maya.

maya is different.. possibly the most versatile 3D app out there or maybe max..

it's just that it's bloated in the wrong direction if your main requirements are more CAD based/accuracy.. (i.e. many features not needed such as video editing/animation while lacking in many specialized functions requiring accuracy)

Hell, with the physical sky simulator in C4D I can design a home, place it in its real world longitude and latitude and see how the sunlight shines through the front windows at a certain time of the year, down to the second.

quite a few apps can do that or similar.. still, it's more of an arch-viz thing as opposed to real world construction documents.

 

[mbrannon47]

Cinema 4D for sure. Adobe has picked it up and it's the first and only 3D modeling program to have native support in AfterEffects.

 

[Derpage]

maya is different.. possibly the most versatile 3D app out there or maybe max..

it's just that it's bloated in the wrong direction if your main requirements are more CAD based/accuracy.. (i.e. many features not needed such as video editing/animation while lacking in many specialized functions requiring accuracy)


quite a few apps can do that or similar.. still, it's more of an arch-viz thing as opposed to real world construction documents.

I think maya might be a bit more versatile but every year they move closer together. I almost forgot. The fence outside was designed in maya using usgs charts to model elevation. We then bought pre built fence panels based upon the design. Would that be evidence enough of my ability to take on of these programs and use the for real life use?

 

[flat five]

I think maya might be a bit more versatile but every year they move closer together. I almost forgot. The fence outside was designed in maya using usgs charts to model elevation. We then bought pre built fence panels based upon the design. Would that be evidence enough of my ability to take on of these programs and use the for real life use?

well you were talking about zbrush earlier. switching the conversation to maya changes things up quite a bit

 

[Derpage]

well you were talking about zbrush earlier. switching the conversation to maya changes things up quite a bit

I can do either. I am just trying to be lazy

 

[chrono1081]

While there are some loud voices for Modo, it's hardly a standard in any realm. I'd start off with something that you can easily find tutorials and plugins for; then work my way into more specialized software. Zbrush is not a good starting point as you will not learn the basics of 3D while learning Zbrush.

Have you ever used Modo? There's a reason a lot of people recommend it. A lot of places use it because the speed of its modeling and its fantastic UV and retopo tools and its getting even more attention now that The Foundry owns it.

If the OP wants to be an animator than yes, Maya or Softimage is a better choice but bang for the buck you just can't beat Modo, its an excellent piece of software (and there are plenty of tutorials for it, just look at Digital Tutors new offerings for starters).

 

[Dranix]

Hmm I don't know. Modo got rather expensive since the Foundry got them... Because of that I went with Shade3d Pro.

 

[bcuzawd]

Another problem with Modo is there are apparent issues with the nMP so far. I'm sure they'll get worked-out, but issue none-the-less.

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1699942/

I'm not sure how well the nMP works with C4D yet, but I would think it runs like it used to since it is primarily using the CPU. Hopefully GPU support will sneak into the the pipeline.

From what I heard around this forum though...V-ray may still have some bugs that need to be tweaked for the nMP too though, so...nothing is perfect at the moment.

 

[Derpage]

If you do decide on modo, the Steam version is only 150 bucks. Quite the discount.

 

[Tutor]

Octane render is where it’s at - realtime animation rendering before your very eyes.

I’ve been doing 2d and 3d animation since the late 1980’s. I’ve purchased and used every major 3d application there is, including but not limited to, Houdini, Maya, 3ds Max, Softimage, Lightwave, Modo, Blender, Solid Works and Cinema 4d. The ones that I used the longest are Maya [beginning first as separate applications sold by (1) Alias and (2) Wavefront Technologies], Lightwave (beginning on my Amiga Video Toaster) and Cinema 4d (beginning with its early iterations on my Commodore Amigas).

I don't like wasting my time and/or money, so I'll do my best not to waste yours either.

Ive got a nMP on order, and after all the reading of the talk of CUDA, Open CL etc etc happening in the benchmarks threads, I thought I might delve into 3D modelling. I'm a 10+ year retoucher/designer/illustrator and just interested in making some models and painting textures up.

Welcome.

What programs work on osx?

Most of the major 3d applications run under OSX, except for a few like 3ds Max and Softimage, and certain manufacturing design applications like Solid Works and competitive CAD products.

Which are optimised for OpenCL?

If you mean for rendering final output, only a small few like Lux Render [ http://www.luxrender.net/en_GB/index ].

As a complete novice, where should I start?

A) If I were "... delv[ing] into 3D modeling [with] 10+ year[s as a] retoucher/designer/illustrator and just interested in making some models and painting textures up," knowing what I do now, I'd begin with something free or low cost like:
a) Blender (a free full package) [ http://www.blender.org ], and/or
b) Cheetah 3d (Mac only - $99 full package) [ http://www.cheetah3d.com ] ), and
c) Silo (a low cost $129, but easy to use and capable, modeler only (so you'll need to import your models into another application such as Blender or Cheetah 3d; but beware - no new development for a long - so try 30 day free trial) [ http://www.nevercenter.com/silo/ ].

B) I'd try trial/learning edition versions [e.g., http://www.autodesk.com and http://www.sidefx.com ] of the more expensive 3d applications and any others I found interesting, for example:
a) Softimage - http://www.autodesk.com/products/au...var001=539858&mktvar002=539858&device=desktop ,
b) 3ds Max - http://www.autodesk.com/products/autodesk-3ds-max/free-trial ,
c) Maya - http://www.autodesk.com/products/autodesk-maya/free-trial ,
d) AutoCad - http://www.autodesk.com/products/autodesk-autocad/free-trial ,
e) Houdini - http://www.sidefx.com/index.php?option=com_download&Itemid=208&task=apprentice and
f) Mari (for texturing)- [ http://www.thefoundry.co.uk/products/mari/trial/ ] .

Obviously, don't get them all going at the same time or you'll be overwhelmed and run out of trial time - so stagger them.

C) I'd use Google profusely to learn all that I could about, e.g., "3d modeling," "3d textur[e, ing, e painting]," "3d animation," "3d rendering," "3d compositing," "3d applications," and "3d plugins."

I'm totally confused about which programs do what!

Just as I indicated earlier, Google and I would be as if we were joined at the hip.

Please lend me your expertise!

I. My Fav
The one application that I use most often is Cinema 4d [ http://www.maxon.net ] because of it's all-around versatility, ease of use, output speed, network render (and now team render) ability and most importantly - quality.

II. Addons
Fortunately, none of these applications have I cast aside because none of them have to stand alone because there are plugins galore, designed to conquer various special tasks that you might need done; so I have not forsaken any of them because they all are useful. So explore the available plugins for whatever3d axe you’re considering before you make your final decision.

III. Render Assist and The Need for More Double Wide PCIe Slots
In additions to the vast number/variety/purpose of plugins that help to extend the application’s usefulness, there’re video card based (GPU) innovations. GPUs can render many times faster (estimates are from 10x to 300x depending on the renderer, scene type and size, the specific GPU, etc) than CPUs, but obviously your mileage will vary. Currently, CUDA (proprietary to Nvidia video cards/GPUs) provides the greatest usefulness, for there’re but a few credible OpenCL based 3d rendering applications like, e.g., LuxRender. However, CUDA support is currently wide and leading the way [ note the application coverage under the headings "COMPUTER AIDED DESIGN" and "Media and Entertainment" here : http://www.nvidia.com/content/tesla/pdf/gpu-accelerated-applications-for-hpc.pdf ]. For example, there’re CUDA rendering capability built into Blender (a free application) and CUDA rendering is supported by, e.g., Vray RT [ http://www.vray.us/?gclid=CLK5_7P-mbwCFVFk7AodEi8AIA ], Thea [ http://www.thearender.com/cms/index.php/news/promotional-offer.html ] and Octane [ http://render.otoy.com/index.php ] renderers. Of the GPU renderers, I prefer Octane because of it’s output quality, speed, ease of use and price. Octane can be used to render files output from any 3d modeling application that outputs .obj files (the forums distribute free translation/exchange apps). Octane shines brightest, however, when you purchase seat(s)*/ with the Octane app-specific plugins. Since Octane’s performance scales linearly with cards of the same model (i.e., two GTX Titans are exactly twice as fast as one GTX Titan; four GTX Titans are twice as fast as two Titans, and likewise eight GTX Titans are twice as fast as four GTX Titans). I have a couple of octo, a greater number of quad and an even larger, remanding number (excluding my four Mac Pros) of tri double wide PCIe slotted systems. So if considering doing 3d work on the nMP and if the GPU render option intrigues you, I'd recommend that you explore getting an external chassis when your need for speed grows. In version, 1.5 of Octane there’re many game changers such as (a) alembic animation support, (2) Lua scripting, (3) per object visibility and no camera visibility w/only shadows and reflections and (4) most stunningly - real-time animation scrubbing w/realtime animated deformations [ See, e.g. http://render.otoy.com/newsblog/?p=275 and http://render.otoy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=36971 and see the pics and watch the videos therein especially on pages 1, 4, 7, and 9. Keep in mind that you’re watching not a video of a video, but a video of a realtime animation render. Truly astonishing what this means in the 3d world]. Here's a tutorial video of an earlier beta version of the Octane render plugin with Cinema 4d :http://vimeo.com/62241847 . The plugin has since been released in a none beta version about a month or two ago.

But those who prefer another (or other) 3d base application instead of Cinema 4d aren’t left out in the cold because there are Octane specific plugins for:
ArchiCAD
Blender
Daz Studio
Lightwave
Poser
Rhino
3ds Max
AutoCAD
Cinema4D
Inventor
Maya
Revit
Softimage
SketchUp (in development)
Modo (in development) and
Carrara (in development).


*/ Speaking of seats, this is where you can maximize your savings if you have a chassis or two or three with lots of double wide PCIe slots to hold those double wide GPUs [ See, e.g., http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/searc...&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ma&Top+Nav-Search= but yours must be ThunderBolt connected]. Octane is priced per computer system, not number of slots in a system. So a seat of Octane that is to be applied to an oMacPro (where I have, at most, two double wide CUDA cards) costs the same as a seat for each of my Tyan servers that each hold eight double wide cards. Although I don't have an external chassis, it's my understanding that each one connected to the same computer at the same time, is viewed as being part of the same system for purposes of the Octane rendering license; thus only one license is be needed. My future expansion of GPU rendering performance will be aided by external chassis.

 

[m0bus]

Good info. So Maya, as far as it seems is already implementing GPU acceleration (and I assume OpenCL) even at the viewport level which covers modelling but is lacking multi-GPU acceleration so the nMP dual cards are not taken advantage of. Is that the same in Windows Maya with Crossfire enabled?

On another note, Autodesk is looking at cloud access to 3DSMax and Maya using Orbx and Octaincloud. Thus making any local workstation GPUs or OS irrelevant as it is all done server side and streamed to you via your browser. I'm personally not sure how that would work, especially when some projects are 50+ gigs in size.

Just to clarify OpenCL is a compute engine while on OSX our viewport is using OpenGL. Aside from the Bullet integration we're not using OpenCL elsewhere and the GPU features I mentioned are just leveraging the GPU outside of OpenCL. Same goes for Windows as well Maya will not use the second GPU. The general rule of thumb for picking a GPU in Maya is going with a single GPU that has the highest amount of VRAM you can afford and this is important if you using Viewport 2.0 and leveraging things like screen space effects etc.

 

[ScottishCaptain]

I. My Fav
The one application that I use most often is Cinema 4d [ http://www.maxon.net ] because of it's all-around versatility, ease of use, output speed, network render (and now team render) ability and most importantly - quality.

Whoa whoa whoa.

C4D might be a "quality application", but the quality of the built-in renderer (which is the only thing that works with Team Render) is horrible. Materials fight with themselves and the scene they're in (this often leads to the creation of "scene specific" materials that aren't applicable anywhere else). The lack of proper anisotropic reflections and even specular highlights (sorry, but the Lumas shader and Danel material are both ****ing jokes) is borderline inexcusable for an application recently updated in 2013.

If you need any kind of realism, you *have* to invest in a third party renderer like M4D/VRAYforC4D/C4DtoA/Maxwell. It is borderline impossible to get good results out of C4D in a limited (read: realistic) timespan.

That's why I suggested Modo. The polygonal modelling tools are still the best in the industry, and it has a comparable renderer to V-Ray (definitely not as flexible, but it works). Even with the whacked material layering system, it's still miles ahead of that decrepit system C4D uses (which hasn't been updated in, what, 20 years? Internally, they still refer to a lot of the shaders as "SLA"- which stands for Smells Like Almonds, which was a BhodiNUT product, which goes back to the 1990s- none of these have really changed since then).

-SC

 

[Tutor]

Whoa whoa whoa.

C4D might be a "quality application", but the quality of the built-in renderer (which is the only thing that works with Team Render) is horrible. Materials fight with themselves and the scene they're in (this often leads to the creation of "scene specific" materials that aren't applicable anywhere else). The lack of proper anisotropic reflections and even specular highlights (sorry, but the Lumas shader and Danel material are both ****ing jokes) is borderline inexcusable for an application recently updated in 2013.

If you need any kind of realism, you *have* to invest in a third party renderer like M4D/VRAYforC4D/C4DtoA/Maxwell. It is borderline impossible to get good results out of C4D in a limited (read: realistic) timespan.

That's why I suggested Modo. The polygonal modelling tools are still the best in the industry, and it has a comparable renderer to V-Ray (definitely not as flexible, but it works). Even with the whacked material layering system, it's still miles ahead of that decrepit system C4D uses (which hasn't been updated in, what, 20 years? Internally, they still refer to a lot of the shaders as "SLA"- which stands for Smells Like Almonds, which was a BhodiNUT product, which goes back to the 1990s- none of these have really changed since then).

-SC

I'd read the prior posts to check the acidity of the water before taking a dive with my earlier post and knew that expressing a preference could cause some skin irritation. Every 3d application has a wart or two or three or more. Having used C4D as long as I have, I've learned what're its warts and how to treat them. Before Octane, I applied other third party rendering salves when they were needed, but that wasn't a chronic ailment. And now with Octane, my drug chest is fuller.

 

[riggles]

From my experience using Maya, MODO, and Cinema4D, I would say they are all "quality" applications. They just have different strengths and weaknesses. Maya is highly extensible, the front runner in character animation, and an industry standard, but at the high end of the price chart and I found it to have the steepest learning curve.

Cinema4D has an excellent reputation for OSX stability, powerful motion graphics tools, and great connectivity with AE, but can also get expensive depending on which package you get. Not the easiest software I've tried to learn, but not too bad especially with the many tutorials available. Both Maya and Cinema4D have a number of plugins and renders available to them.

MODO has a well respected and fast polygon modeler, a very good interactive renderer, one of the best support communities, and costs less than half of the other two (less if you catch one of there sales), but it isn't as popular as the other two. That means there aren't as many plugins, renderers, and tutorials available. And one thing to note about your nMP and MODO is that there is currently still a bug that could seriously reduce viewport performance in Mavericks.

Your preferences and likely your budget will determine which one (or any) you want to buy. Obviously demos will help, too. Obviously, it's hard for you to know what the "best" one is because all of our recommendations are shaped by our own needs, preferences, and past experiences.

 

[ScottishCaptain]

I'd read the prior posts to check the acidity of the water before taking a dive with my earlier post and knew that expressing a preference could cause some skin irritation. Every 3d application has a wart or two or three or more. Having used C4D as long as I have, I've learned what're its warts and how to treat them. Before Octane, I applied other third party rendering salves when they were needed, but that wasn't a chronic ailment. And now with Octane, my drug chest is fuller.

Sorry, I apologize if I came off as blunt. I just don't want op investing $3500+ in a package that comes with an "OK" renderer when there's definitely better out there for cheaper. AR3 and Physical Renderer have their uses, I just don't think physical accuracy is one of them, even though MAXON is doing their best to advertise otherwise.

I am curious though, you claim to know how to work around the "warts", so how do you handle mapped anisotropic specular highlights and/or reflections in C4D? I've seen dozens of workarounds over the years and I've never seen a suitable solution for AR3, other then "use another render engine". Or are limitations like this simply something you've accepted, and that's why you're using Octane now?

-SC

 

[flat five]

From my experience using Maya, MODO, and Cinema4D, I would say they are all "quality" applications.
[...]
Obviously, it's hard for you to know what the "best" one is because all of our recommendations are shaped by our own needs, preferences, and past experiences.

it's ok.. you can go ahead and say "just get modo and be done with it" to someone that hasn't outlined specific needs other than "i'm interested in learning 3D modeling"


i mean, even if you eventually find out you need more powerful/specialized cad or animation or whatever tools, there's no way you're going to feel like "oh, i'm so bummed i wasted all that time learning modo".. especially because most serious modelers know more than one style app. and (imo) modo is the best polygon/subD modeler out there- all things considered.

(personally, my polygon modeler and the program i'm most proficient at is sketchup.. been using it heavily since 2002.. started rhino about 5 years ago (after realizing sketchup wasn't going to progress under google ownership in the way i originally suspected it would with @last) and it's now my go to app but i still can't quite use it with my eyes closed and hands behind my back in the same way i can with sketchup.. but i always wish my poly modeler skills were in modo instead of sketchup.. once i master rhino (2 more years?), i'm sure i'll start getting into modo some more)

MODO has a well respected and fast polygon modeler, a very good interactive renderer, one of the best support communities, and costs less than half of the other two (less if you catch one of there sales), but it isn't as popular as the other two. That means there aren't as many plugins, renderers, and tutorials available. And one thing to note about your nMP and MODO is that there is currently still a bug that could seriously reduce viewport performance in Mavericks.

not sure if you all know about the cad junkie (http://cadjunkie.com) ..he's an industrial designer and seemingly an expert in many 3D apps.. his three main apps are solidworks, rhino, and modo but by the looks of his content, modo is his favorite (there are other contributors at the site as well.. i like the film guy using rhino but i don't think he puts up much stuff anymore)

anyway.. it's a paid subscription site (there's some free content as well.. still requires signing up to the site) but i believe they still offer a 1week trial to the premium content.. i once did the trial and literally watched all the modo stuff even though i wasn't even trying to learn it (i don't own a TV ).. from that, i have a decent grasp on modo basics without ever using it.. it's worth checking out though and it's not only for beginners.

 

[Tutor]

From my experience using Maya, MODO, and Cinema4D, I would say they are all "quality" applications. They just have different strengths and weaknesses. Maya is highly extensible, the front runner in character animation, and an industry standard, but at the high end of the price chart and I found it to have the steepest learning curve.

Cinema4D has an excellent reputation for OSX stability, powerful motion graphics tools, and great connectivity with AE, but can also get expensive depending on which package you get. Not the easiest software I've tried to learn, but not too bad especially with the many tutorials available. Both Maya and Cinema4D have a number of plugins and renders available to them.

MODO has a well respected and fast polygon modeler, a very good interactive renderer, one of the best support communities, and costs less than half of the other two (less if you catch one of there sales), but it isn't as popular as the other two. That means there aren't as many plugins, renderers, and tutorials available. And one thing to note about your nMP and MODO is that there is currently still a bug that could seriously reduce viewport performance in Mavericks.

Your preferences and likely your budget will determine which one (or any) you want to buy. Obviously demos will help, too. Obviously, it's hard for you to know what the "best" one is because all of our recommendations are shaped by our own needs, preferences, and past experiences.

All so very true, especially that last sentence.

----------

it's ok.. you can go ahead and say "just get modo and be done with it" to someone that hasn't outlined specific needs other than "i'm interested in learning 3D modeling"


i mean, even if you eventually find out you need more powerful/specialized cad or animation or whatever tools, there's no way you're going to feel like "oh, i'm so bummed i wasted all that time learning modo".. especially because most serious modelers know more than one style app. and (imo) modo is the best polygon/subD modeler out there- all things considered.

(personally, my polygon modeler and the program i'm most proficient at is sketchup.. been using it heavily since 2002.. started rhino about 5 years ago (after realizing sketchup wasn't going to progress under google ownership in the way i originally suspected it would with @last) and it's now my go to app but i still can't quite use it with my eyes closed and hands behind my back in the same way i can with sketchup.. but i always wish my poly modeler skills were in modo instead of sketchup.. once i master rhino (2 more years?), i'm sure i'll start getting into modo some more)





not sure if you all know about the cad junkie (http://cadjunkie.com) ..he's an industrial designer and seemingly an expert in many 3D apps.. his three main apps are solidworks, rhino, and modo but by the looks of his content, modo is his favorite (there are other contributors at the site as well.. i like the film guy using rhino but i don't think he puts up much stuff anymore)

anyway.. it's a paid subscription site (there's some free content as well.. still requires signing up to the site) but i believe they still offer a 1week trial to the premium content.. i once did the trial and literally watched all the modo stuff even though i wasn't even trying to learn it (i don't own a TV ).. from that, i have a decent grasp on modo basics without ever using it.. it's worth checking out though and it's not only for beginners.

Thanks for reference to cad junkie. I love your artistry poking fun at the nMP casing. If that's your 3d work at play in those pics, in your posts here you've minimized the excellence of your 3d talents and sensing/perspective greatly.

 

[flat five]

Thanks for reference to cad junkie. I love your artistry poking fun at the nMP casing. If that's your 3d work at play in those pics, in your posts here you've minimized the excellence of your 3d talents and sensing/perspective greatly.

ha.. yeah.. these ones were done in rhino.. i have a couple of more ideas for that thread but i've been spending my modeling time on more pressing matters lately ..maybe a few more weeks and i'll add a couple more to that thread.

 

[Tutor]

If I were asked point blank, "Why do you use so many 3d applications?" My answer would be, "Because they all have warts, but luckily they're not the same warts in each one." Similarly, that I bought a so-called "Complete Tool Set" from my local hardware store didn't diminish my need to later buy a "Complete Wrench Set," and later a "Complete Screw Driver Set," etc. It's just the way tools are and how tasks vary.

Sorry, I apologize if I came off as blunt. I just don't want op investing $3500+ in a package that comes with an "OK" renderer when there's definitely better out there for cheaper. AR3 and Physical Renderer have their uses, I just don't think physical accuracy is one of them, even though MAXON is doing their best to advertise otherwise.

No apologize needed or even anticipated. I appreciate your being blunt. However, if you carefully re-read my post about which you've expressed disagreement, you should note that the applications that I specifically recommended that the OP consider starting with (Blender - free and/or Cheetah 3d - $99, and a 30 day free trial version of Silo - free) tools that altogether costs less than $100, which is not anywhere near $3k. Much of what we learn on the cheapest of 3d applications is fungible if we choose to move on to more complicated ones.

I am curious though, you claim to know how to work around the "warts", so how do you handle mapped anisotropic specular highlights and/or reflections in C4D? I've seen dozens of workarounds over the years and I've never seen a suitable solution for AR3, other then "use another render engine". Or are limitations like this simply something you've accepted, and that's why you're using Octane now?

-SC

I've never been keen on seeing anything as "all or nothing." Don't look a gift horse in the mouth. I was partially agreeing with you when I responded, in part, in my next post, "Having used C4D as long as I have, I've learned what're its warts and how to treat them. Before Octane, I applied other third party rendering salves when they were needed, but that wasn't a chronic ailment. And now with Octane, my drug chest is fuller." Please note that not even now can I say that my drug chest is completely full. Moreover, I've never found C4D's output to consistently display any lack of physical accuracy. If it did display any such inaccuracy that may have been due to my failure, and not that of the application. I didn't add Octane to my tool chest because of any perceived need for better physical accuracy - faster physical accuracy = yes. Nevertheless, not all 3d jobs require much/high specularity and/or reflections. Plus I have post tools, as well as other renderers, for C4D when a scene just don't look right. In addition, I still have other 3d applications that I've been using for many years. So when the need arises, I tweak C4D or otherwise I can easily go beyond what the stock C4D application does well. The more I use a 3d application, the more I've begin to appreciate the fact that perfection is just a goal towards which to strive, but perfection is rarely fully attainable. And just as with my mechanical tools analogy that opens this reply, I may likely find myself having to head back to the software store for that special renderer/etc. that was missing from the so-called "Complete 3d Application Toolset."

P.S. Maybe it's just a defect in my perceptions/perspectives and in those of my clients that the real world isn't as full of specularity and highlights as some 3d depictions would have one believe is the case. And/or it could be partially due to the pervasive and high levels of humidity here in the South, for when I lived in SoCal and in N.Y.C., the world did exhibit a bit more glitter, but even then the level of glitter was highest on the West Coast where the levels of humidity are the lowest of any place where I've resided. There some complained about a level of humidity in the high 30%. Here, that's a very, very dry day - meaning it's the dead of winter and a frigid Arctic wind has pushed the Jet Stream to far south - at least for our comfort level. On those days the sun has no clouds to hide it's burning, bright glare and although we then shiver, the world does then display to us lots more glitter.

Finally, were you to supply to me a particular C4d file whose output depicts that about which you complain, then I’d be in a better to position to state to you what and how I would change.

 

[motegi]

I feel spoiled. So many pros in here! Thank you all so much. I have book marked this thread for reference!

 

[thekev]

No apologize needed or even anticipated. I appreciate your being blunt. However, if you carefully re-read my post about which you've expressed disagreement, you should note that the applications that I specifically recommended that the OP consider starting with (Blender - free and/or Cheetah 3d - $99, and a 30 day free trial version of Silo - free) tools that altogether costs less than $100, which is not anywhere near $3k. Much of what we learn on the cheapest of 3d applications is fungible if we choose to move on to more complicated ones.

I would've said Blender or an educational license of Maya. The only problem with Maya is that it has so many quirks that can trip up a beginner. It's possible to end up with unwelded vertices from extrusions or be unfamiliar with some of the quirks of its construction history. With Blender I would personally be tempted to use something like a 3delight exporter, but that may not be a good idea for everyone. Mental Ray's shaders are usable enough out of the box, which makes me want to favor an educational license of maya.

So, more than nothing and more and more products finding ways to use OpenCL, even WinZip compression now has OpenCL built in.

Obviously the benefits for 3D are in things like Particle systems, fogs, fluids, special effects / complex materials, physics and dynamics along with realtime renderings so quite relevant and important to the 3D industry, especially as you get gains from 10x to 20x faster than the CPU can do it.

3D software designers have to take this on board or fall behind the competition.

It's all quite exciting as we are starting to see some amazing things making use of it.

Anim

It seems like you grabbed as many links as possible, but you should note that OpenCL support isn't completely mature in some of those applications. For example Davinci Resolve added it due to Macs, but it started with a slightly reduced feature set.

 

[echoout]

I teach basic Cinema 4D college classes and I've found it to be a tool just about anyone can pick up pretty quickly, at least in a basic way. We concentrate on C4D in the motion graphics pipeline and don't do a ton of modeling, but it's been fantastic tool to introduce folks to the 3D realm. It being able to play friendly with Photoshop, Illustrator and After Effects helps a lot.

In my freelance world, I light, texture and animate models made by dedicated modelers in C4D, Maya, Modo, Z-Brush, Max and all the usual suspects. They all have their advantages, quirks and difficulty levels. Really dig into one and try to use it enough to become nimble. It's hard to tell how much you like a robust tool like this until you've gotten to a certain comfort level.

Good luck!

 

[Dranix]

I don't know if all the high end packages are a good recommendation for starting out.

I stand with Cheetah3d, Shade3d basic or Blender for the start. After some exprience he can decide what is important for him.