I did not say blender is not versitile, what I did say is that it seems wierd to for instance remove the fracture modifier from blender after 2.75…If anyone knows ways to lets say tear cloth procedurally in blender without having to be cg matter, not everybody is a geo nodes expert, then tell me…I believe it is much easier than that in C4D…
If what you actually need is a specific simulation feature and you’re not sure how to achieve it in Blender, just ask. This community is full of people willing to help, whether it’s pointing you to an existing addon, explaining how to build it yourself, or finding a workaround. Sometimes the tool exists and you just don’t know where to look 
If that is the case, then I encourage you to use C4D for that. Modern CG artists should be fluent in many different tools for CG work. The most expensive part will always be your time, so if you can save time and have greater ease accomplishing a task in another tool, then it’s almost certainly worth the monetary cost to gain access to that tool.
Budget aside, the other problem is that it is a new program to learn and it is not easy to master it as well as I have with blender because it needs a lot of time…
Well you are right at the end, I just actually saw that Blender 5.2 is actually cooking up a cloth tearing system…Huh…That came by surprise…
Well then, it sounds like the thing between you and what you want is learning more skills. Whether it’s geonodes or C4D.
If you take the time to understand geonodes, it will greatly enrich your experience and open up a lot of possibilities. so I would encourage you to look into it.
“Revert Monkey Genocide” was not my favorite commit.
This is very true, but it’s the reality of working in this field if you decide that the tool that you are using is not the tool that is best suited for the job.
I have used more 3-D software packages that I can list, because that list contains software that I’ve even forgotten that I used for a few months. It’s often stated “nothing is perfect”, but I think that glosses over the truth just a bit and turns it into a cliché.
It’s more accurate to say that most widely used software packages have an area that they are very strong in, or weaker in. I’ve never seen one that didn’t have a weakness, that in some way directly impacted what I was able to do with it. Easy example – people talk fondly of XSI, how wonderful everything was, and how disappointing it is that it was killed. I owned it, I didn’t care for it, and I sold it. Without exaggeration, I prefer blender to XSI in almost every way.
Plan A - convince the blender developers to add some complex feature from cinema 4D.
Plan B - get cinema 4D and learn to use the feature.
Obviously the cost factor is quite different, but I promise you Plan B is the quickest way to be using that feature. Plan A has no guarantee of ever happening in the first place.
It is true…As you see, I have tried plan A with the discussion…We will see what happens…However I still believe plan A to be feasible…
Yes…Unfortunately, geo nodes are hard…
This is an interesting topic raised by the op.
I have a friend who uses 3dsmax who tried out Blender and dropped it concluding in his own opinion that Blender is a paid software masquerading as open source and explained that if u do professional work, u need the addons which are paid, by the time u buy all the required ones especially pro versions for comfortability and ease of use like the paid software 3dsmax, the amount is substantial.
Another issue he mentioned was he noticed sometimes some of the addons were and can be later dropped or abandoned by the dev including the paid ones. That to him is a very serious issue. All features in Houdini/3dsmax are constantly maintained and updated.
He is showing interest in the videos he has seen of geometry node features though so might give Blender another go (I don’t think so tbh).
I think Ton has expressed some distaste with paid addons in the past (I may be wrong). I personally don’t have an issue with it.
Well, no there never was such thing in blender official. For a long time there was the fracture modifier around that could do basically fracture and IIRC rigid body on top of it. And it was super close to actually be integrated. But in the end it was refused because it caused to many issues within the code which would have caused problems down the line for blender to keep growing.
Also I think there was also some test around tearing and stuff like simulating a car crash but again it wasn’t integrated.
Well, no one is working against blender. If someone comes with a cool addition every developers goal is to see it integrated. But, there are still things that can prevent that. First it has to comply to some design rules and fit blender vision and roadmap. Also the code has to comply to some quality and future proof standard. A tool can be super good in all aspect but if the code appears to cause issues in the long run then the tool isn’t ready for inclusion .
Well first there is a lot of resources out there either in forms of tutorials, assets…
In the meantime the sentence “help others that can not use afford or learn other programs …” kind of triggers me a bit. Also “Team work makes the dream work…” in this context. Since it’s a team work, what are you willing to provide ?
I think you also underestimate how complex these tools are to build when it comes to making something production ready. Just look at the time it took to make the upcoming hair simulator.
In think open source and sharing stuff is great and obviously we all here benefit from that. In the meantime it’s also understandable that people that worked for months on a setup / simulator or else would like to get some retribution for their work in one form or another.
Well, Plan A it’s basically what is already happening, there is already 30 developers working on blender 8+ hours a day to fill missing gaps. They know better than us what is the best move given time money and blender source code.
@Lakias_Latsos I think if you really want to make a difference then act, provide something and then ask for help if needed. But asking for people to act or act more is a bit naive. They didn’t wait for someone to ask them to do so. In it’s current state it’s the best we can do / get…
I owned a license of Max (well – I guess I technically still do), and this is not remotely true.
They’re absolutely some things in Max that you cannot do in blender, or at least easily, but again that’s true with all software.
But that cost analysis above is just ridiculous. My license of Max was $3500, and then I paid another $500 for a plug-in that did ink lines/celshading.
Blender is free, I paid $400 for Psoft Pencil+, $8 for Goo Engine, and the result renders take about two seconds a frame, compared to four minutes. (Granted, this was older hardware. But the price comparison still works.)
And the image looks better, too.
During 2.8, developers discussions about physics were about what opensource libraries were available, could it be possible to have a multi-simulation physics engine, could there be GPU accelerated ones.
When 2.8 codequest started, there were an experimental fracture branch and a Mantaflow one, with the hope to be able to use CUDA with it.
2.8 design installed promise of “Everything Nodes UI” for physics and a replacement of all old physics modifiers by nodes.
The module was named “Nodes & Physics” since then.
During 2.8 series development, there was a first attempt of simulation nodes to replace particles, that was not satisfying. It was a first draft.
So, in 2.9 series, introduction of Geometry Nodes was a lot less ambitious and started with simple objective to scatter instances, to build solid basis.
By support of keyframing, increasing of GN support as procedural modeling tool in 3 series was making them, a satisfying motion design tool, able to do particles simulation.
Simulation Zone was added in 3.6. Bake node in 4.1.
4 series was about polishing GN workflow and preparing it for Hair Physics ; that are expected since new Hair Curves object type introduced in 3.5.
So, that is finally happening. They are currently building a demonstration about creating a physics solver for GN. And when this will be officially released. There will probably be an explosion of offers of alternate solvers.
But currently, they are settling the basis.
5.2 alpha has a Bundle in Geometry experimental feature, that does not exist in 5.1, but is used by those nodes.
I’ve worked professionally with both 3ds Max and Cinema 4D, so I can speak from direct experience. The total amount I’ve spent on Blender addons over the years doesn’t come close to a single year of a 3ds Max license, let alone the additional plugins you end up buying on top of it, because Cinema 4D and 3ds Max have paid plugins too, and they’re not exactly cheap either. 
The comparison between Blender’s addon costs and proprietary software licensing really doesn’t hold up once you look at the actual numbers. We’re talking about a completely different scale of investment.
As for addons being abandoned, it’s a fair point and worth keeping in mind. That said, with Blender being open source, if an addon stops being maintained, the community can step in, fork it, or build something better. It’s not a perfect system, but it does offer a kind of resilience that proprietary software simply can’t.
Speaking in regards to “others always support features forever” - didn’t MentalRay get completely removed from Max due to licensing disagreements?
C4D: I feel like I read that the BhodiNut shaders were deprecated at some point, is that correct?
Other third-party solutions for both that are no longer developed is just too long to list.
Well, there’s a lesson in that: if you’re interested in direction of development, first of all study the available information about direction of development 
For example, on this forum Geometry Nodes megathread is one such place where they share news and discuss this sort of thing.
That said, people have been sharing nodetrees since the feature was added - some are sold as addons, some explained in tutorials, some simply given away in easy-to-miss forum posts…
The more complex the system, the more likely it will be a paid addon, simply because it cost someone a lot of time and energy and they feel like they deserve a little something in return - it is their right to decide how/if to distribute their hard work.
The argument that blender has a problem because there is some feature able to do some things but there are no solutions for that things is like saying:
Some pen and paper has a big problem because one can do write a bestseller with it but it has no “helper buttons” to produce chapters and sections and also not for developing characters or describe environments or scenes..
In general:
If one want special tools for special purposes then one can do one of this:
- develope this tools
- buy this tools
So if one wants to do something in any 3D app then educate oneself about possible tools and maybe invest not only in time but also in money to achieve this might be a more effective way.
“Blame others” to not give one the tools one “needs” and calling for a crisis is… 
weird (?).
Also:
- The developers of some commercial software are paid for sure (secure job) for some time: they also have to ensure that almost everything they do does “fit” to the architecture of that software because paying customer are their source of income.
- The blender main developers are also mostly payed by the blender foundation (but if the donations drop they have to think about what to work first on) and the did a great job in the whole developement. ( For example loading not only older file versions but also future version, also when sometimes with a little break for only LTS versions and just lately for 3.6 not able to load some 4.5/ 5 versions ) .
But they can do some bigger changes than those big companies and so push blender even further.. and yes this sometimes break things or they need some major architecture changes and can not “simply” migrate this very quicky. Also because you can always use some older versions in parallel (haven’t seen this not much in commercial software connecting to some license server).
Another two also’s:
- A lot of people does publish their addons/extension for free and also a lot do constribute code for free and some assets collections are for free (and even on the Blender-org ).
- The amount of needed extra’s (addons/extensions) depends largely on individual use cases. So compareing numbers and to think that “ones knows how this or that domain of app does work” to proof some general claim is.. mathematical-logic-wise wrong ( you can only disprove something with a counter example
)
Happy blending.
Exactly, I had forgotten about MentalRay, that was a hard hit. I honestly can’t remember what was removed from Cinema 4D anymore, it’s been years ahah. No ecosystem is immune to this, paid or free.
well ok, lets begin…I tried to replicate cg matter’s geo nodes liquid sim wich has the benefit of gradually enabling parts of the object to simulate and made some small changes regarding organization and some stuff…then I tried to add collisions with other objects and I can not get it working…It is particle based. Any ideas would be welcome