Absolutely. Collections are nice, but it seems like the development stalled and they just left it at this unfinished state. They are not really groups, they are more like layers. I think the whole workflow that is there right now is extremely messy and not good enough.
Since the inception of collections, never did I ONCE had any reason to use the feature of having objects in different collections. I find that workflow confusing and appalling. The idea of throwing layers and groups together without distinction is
I know I’m way late to reply, but nobody seems to have mentioned yet that you can already do that. In addition to using the underlined letter you can also use the number that corresponds to the place in the menu. So for example, X → 2 would delete edges.
Before you get ahead of yourself, do realize many C4D users are decrying the latest R25 as the thinnest update since R17. More and more loyal C4D users are complaining, and leaving the fold for Blender, Houdini, Maya, etcetera, or at least learn a second DCC just in case, to brace themselves for the future.
Obviously the video only shows the (rather limited) new shiny stuff. What it doesn’t show is its aging slow built-in renderer, the slow viewport when dealing with many objects (Blender is far ahead in this regard, and Blender 2.93 is actually better at handling and editing heavy mesh objects - not to mention the superior Eevee viewport quality and performance), and the many parts that have been allowed to languish for a long time.
The grass looks greener on the other side, but if you’d be in the other camp actually living off that grass, you would probably have a very different view.
C4D is a good DCC, but faces a bit of a crisis moment. Users asked for a lot of workflow and functional improvements, but instead got a redesigned GUI. And there really wasn’t anything wrong with the interface, so most users (including myself) are somewhat bewildered following this release.
I myself had not expected much, but even this I feel is a really odd release. It is only going to drive loyal users who are holding out for useful functional new features away from C4D.
But perhaps to people looking in from the outside, like you @thinsoldier, its surface may shine attractively, yet it is easily scratched.
Oh, I would love some of C4D’s Outliner goodness to be added to Blender’s Outliner.
And I’d like Blender’s GUI to be more configurable in regards to tool showing and hiding, and rearranging.
The text tool in C4D is something I would like to see in Blender as well. While Blender has competent text tools, they would benefit if they’d get some of the options that are available in C4D.
Something like MoGraph would be nice too, but we’ll have nodes, and the upcoming asset manager will take care of the last thing that I miss in Blender compared to C4D.
Blender, GIMP, Godot, and other FOSS apps. are set to benefit even more in the era of rising hardware prices. There is simply a lot less room for such pricey rental-only solutions if you want to stay current (even if some remain the superior option for now), because there are a lot more people who now have to decide between new hardware or continuing with their licenses.
With the chip shortage likely not easing until well into 2022, there is a lot of room for FOSS to develop more so individuals and small studios won’t switch back to commercial-only pipelines once prices go down.
Well, that’s also the reason why I invested in K-Cycles to squeeze more rendering speed out of my GTX1080.
Even if I wanted to I can’t find a reasonably priced 3080 card.
I agree that many users and smaller teams will have to cut costs somewhere. Hardware prices are very, very high now. Since good hardware seems more essential in production than pricey software, … I do think it depends on the efficiency and speed that software brings to the table.
Nonetheless, choices have to be made.
They’re actually quite powerful and easy to use - in particular when combined with a parametric object plugin like WonderMesh everything remains non-destructive.
Or use a Geometry Node generated mesh as a basis for the the dupliverts (which wouldn’t be necessary if you duplicate on verts via the nodes, but still)
Just parent an object to a (for example) to a mesh ring. Then select the mesh ring, and open the object properties. Twirl down the Instancing options, and activate ‘Vertices’.
It’s an alternative to instancing a circle array, for example.
I knew this thread would pop up again, its that time of the year again, where disgruntled C4d users get washed on the Blender-Island shore…
This is the first time since leaving C4d that I actually didn’t watched the “What’s new in version …” video Maxon releases every year after a new release.
Instead I read through their announcement and had a good (and evil) laugh.
Holy shit - I thought Maxon would slowly get their shit together.
I’m currently living off of wind sandwiches and water pies. If I had money I’d have C4D for the things it does well and easily that I’ve never seen anything remotely close to in Blender tutorials.
If I had the money I’d buy C4D just for the caps and bevels feature.
As soon as I start editing the mesh the duplicates start facing undesired directions with no way to control them. Geometry nodes point instance is much easier to use.
C4D has never been great at dealing with many objects. Relatively light scenes with a couple of thousand objects will slow down the software.
Identical scenes that I opened in both apps cause performance issues in C4D, while Blender remains smooth and responsive.
…then I assume on your current computer Blender’s 2.93’s viewport quality is better than C4D?
All joking aside, Blender’s viewport is technically ahead of C4D. Aside from the overall visual quality, C4D misses helpful options like the cavity shading. There’s just not as much control either.
Not saying it is bad: Houdini so far from my basic experience with it seems on a lower level in regards to viewport quality compared to C4D to me.
Of course. This could arguably be stated about any DCC. But in Blender’s case (or Houdini, or Maya, or even LightWave) a rather essential part such as a decent built-in render option is up to date.
Besides, CInema4D is rather expensive, so I’d expect better from them instead of expecting their users to shell out more for a third party render solution or Redshift.
…and on the C4D forum you will have users pointing out various Blender and Houdini tutorials.
The same on Modo or Max forums. Human nature. “Look at the bling that other guy has! Why don’t we have that same bling?!”
Superficial. I’d rather focus on my own work and how the various 3d apps and tools help me finish it. Which is why I now am learning Houdini to use alongside Blender for my own work.
A few years ago I would have agreed with you. With the newer bevel profile option in Blender I no longer think there’s that much of a difference.
As I mentioned earlier, I would very much like some of the fine-tuned text functionality from C4D in Blender, however. C4D has excellent typography control options which are plainly superior to Blender’s.
And I agree with you that something like MoGraph in Blender would be super.
Anyway. Both apps are great. Blender has its perks, as does C4D. And they no longer clash visually when I run them parallel on a dual screen setup now that the GUI is ‘Blenderized’.
The difference is that Blender has had momentum going for it the past years, while C4D’s development stalled somewhat.
I’m about 50 minutes in and still feeling nothing bug envy. It appears their equivalent of Geometry Nodes has every node easily scannable in the asset browser instead of nested menus (this is more user friendly to me) and every node can be added to the object directly as part of a modifer stack OR to a single thing that is like Blender’s geometry nodes modifier where you use multiple nodes within one entry on the modifier stack. That feels sooo flexible to me. I don’t think Blender has any of these mesh selection nodes yet.
Creating a collection instance is a fundamental skill that any beginner user should learn.
You just have to select objects and group them into a collection.
Then, you create the instance. Then you create a circle. Then, you make circle parent of child.
Then, you open Instancing panel in Circle Properties and press Vertices button.
OK ! you have to retain 7 steps. That is slow. That takes more than half a minute to be done.
But that is not complicated at all, compared to what you have to do if you want to animate a character, create a fluid simulation or a particle system animation.
I was talking to somebody who had years of experience with Blender. So, I used the old term for Instancing by Vertices (Dupliverts).
I mentioned that solution because if you don’t search to have a parametric circle, it is still faster than using geometry nodes. Geometry nodes solution will take around one minute.
Yes. The fracture modifier is really missing in past 2.8 releases.
We have to use a 2.79 branch, convert modifier animation into a regular one and then reopen file in a modern release to exploit EEVEE or Cycles.
That takes time to update long-run projects to mutation of software. But at the end, we should end-up with dynamic fractures defined by nodes.
A basic voronoi fracturing for modelling purpose only will probably be available, next year.
Probably next year, some experimental work about dynamics solvers will happen.
