Jump to content
3DCoat Forums

Has Blender 2.8 surpassed Maya (and a lot of other modeling rendering programs)?


Recommended Posts

  • Reputable Contributor
21 hours ago, druh0o said:

Why? I didn't see anyone using ProRender.

For the reasons I mentioned, plus it's free for developers to use. It works and works very well for an app like 3DCoat, where users are not going to be trying to render out an animation, but still images and turntables. Substance has iRay. You don't hear much about iRay, either, but it's there and I have seen renders from it. ProRender was also integrated in C4D (despite Redshift being bought by them....it still costs extra $$$ to use Redshift and nothing for ProRender) and Modo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

I'm very happy with the changes to Blender in 2.8  I really wish they had added more themes, but that is being nit picky about it.  Collections are probably one of the coolest features.  

Everyone mentions hard ops, But I think Fluent is a very good boolean tool to.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
14 hours ago, iceage said:

I'm very happy with the changes to Blender in 2.8  I really wish they had added more themes, but that is being nit picky about it.  Collections are probably one of the coolest features.  

Everyone mentions hard ops, But I think Fluent is a very good boolean tool to.  

Thanks for the mention on FLuent, I didnt know about that one. I watched the videos and it looked pretty good, very interactive.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Reputable Contributor
On 8/6/2019 at 4:02 PM, druh0o said:

Yeah, i know that ProRender in C4D (since R19 i think) and all this time no one actually uses it.

What data are your using to reach that conclusion? Just because you see some showcase examples of other render engines being used, that doesn't mean ProRender is not being utilized. Not everyone who does use it will display their renders in a gallery. Not everybody uses the default C4D Physical Render, either, but it's there for people to use if they don't fork out extra $$$ for a 3rd party render. ProRender gave them a solid, built-in GPU render engine. Same goes for Modo. For those wanting to use a GPU engine for nice studio renders and such, without having to pay several hundred $$$ for VRay or Octane, they can.

The same would be the case in 3DCoat. Many people may choose to render in their host 3D app, but there will be many who would find ProRender a nice asset to have integrated in the app. I am one of those. For animations, I would render outside of 3DCoat, but if ProRender or Cycles were available in 3DCoat, I would use them for still images, model sheets or turntables.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
15 hours ago, AbnRanger said:

Just because you see some showcase examples of other render engines being used, ...

Wait a minute! I didn't write that - about "i saw some showcase examples of other render engines ..." 

And writing that "Just because you see some showcase examples of other render engines being used" you're assuming that's all my experience with render engines in C4D? I also can reply: "What data are your using to reach that conclusion?" Ok. That's not correct. But that's ok.
 

15 hours ago, AbnRanger said:

What data are your using to reach that conclusion?

Let's see
https://forums.cgsociety.org/t/amd-radeon-prorender-render-engine/1827994/239
https://forums.cgsociety.org/t/prorender-tips/1844147/27
 

So, there was a real hype before ProRender was actually released for C4D. And some amount in about a month after that. But as you can see there is a dead silence after. For almost 2 years. But probably i'm wrong. Probably they just so happy with ProRender and using it in complete silence all that time? Maybe! Ok.
 

15 hours ago, AbnRanger said:

Not everyone who does use it will display their renders in a gallery.

Of course not everyone! But on average, galleries are good indicators. Why not?
 

https://www.artstation.com/search?q=Radeon ProRender&sort_by=relevance

 

But what about C4D with ProRender?

https://www.artstation.com/search?q=Cinema 4D ProRender&sort_by=relevance

 

So, based on these results (and a couple of videos you posted before, one of them is showcase example) i have to admit that i was wrong saying "no one uses it" I have to say "someone uses it with C4D". Peace!

Edited by druh0o
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Reputable Contributor
7 hours ago, druh0o said:

Wait a minute! I didn't write that - about "i saw some showcase examples of other render engines ..." 

And writing that "Just because you see some showcase examples of other render engines being used" you're assuming that's all my experience with render engines in C4D? I also can reply: "What data are your using to reach that conclusion?" Ok. That's not correct. But that's ok.
 

Let's see
https://forums.cgsociety.org/t/amd-radeon-prorender-render-engine/1827994/239
https://forums.cgsociety.org/t/prorender-tips/1844147/27
 

So, there was a real hype before ProRender was actually released for C4D. And some amount in about a month after that. But as you can see there is a dead silence after. For almost 2 years. But probably i'm wrong. Probably they just so happy with ProRender and using it in complete silence all that time? Maybe! Ok.
 

Of course not everyone! But on average, galleries are good indicators. Why not?
 

https://www.artstation.com/search?q=Radeon ProRender&sort_by=relevance

 

But what about C4D with ProRender?

https://www.artstation.com/search?q=Cinema 4D ProRender&sort_by=relevance

 

So, based on these results (and a couple of videos you posted before, one of them is showcase example) i have to admit that i was wrong saying "no one uses it" I have to say "someone uses it with C4D". Peace!

I'm asking what statistic data you are using to draw the conclusion that "Nobody uses ProRender." It's a fair question, no? For one thing, ProRender is still relatively new compared to most 3rd party render engines, and despite the fact that it is free for users and developers, alike, it is still being aggressively developed.

My position is that, while it may not yet be mature enough to overtake expensive 3rd party render engines, it is a good alternative to iRay, which comes natively in Substance. It's MUCH better than 3DCoat's default render engine. It's certainly better than ZBrush's native render engine. So, that is the real comparison...not how it stacks up against expensive 3rd party render engines in C4D. 

Bottom line is that for what its designated purpose would be in 3DCoat, ProRender would be a great option, and not only for those with an NVidia card.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Reputable Contributor
2 minutes ago, Carlosan said:

Hi 

If you wish to continue the discussion about RPR, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.

Thx

The discussion stems from the OP's post about the new ProRender update in Blender, so it's part of the discussion. I mentioned that I'd like to see that render integrated in 3DCoat, and someone disagreed. Would be nice to render turntables in Pro Render, in 3DCoat and if needed export to Blender via applink, ready to render in ProRender in Blender. That way, a user can do their look development in 3DCoat and send it to Blender to render animation content. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

This is probably a  superfluous post for most of you but I'm finally getting around to trying it, and learning its interface and it's beautiful. I'm thinking it's better than Maya's.  It's got a really good feel to it. EEVEE is awesome. Is there another preview renderer out there that's as fast with such great results? It's just amazing to me because Blender was such a steaming piece of ***** for such a long time. 

 

899254139_Blender2.8.thumb.JPG.4dafe826cb170440d98e2cb9da03fb97.JPG

This seems to be an excellent series of getting started in Blender videos. I'm enjoying it..

 

https://youtu.be/7MRonzqYJgw

Edited by L'Ancien Regime
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Quote

 

The Stuff Pablo is working on is truly amazing for Blender, once you start using the vox remesher, you probably wont go back to dyntopo.

Funny how ZBrush went from a remesher workflow(dynamesh) to sculptris mode (dyntopo) while Blender is doing it the other way around. Having more options in Blender is always a good thing :)   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Reputable Contributor
1 hour ago, Nossgrr said:

The Stuff Pablo is working on is truly amazing for Blender, once you start using the vox remesher, you probably wont go back to dyntopo.

Funny how ZBrush went from a remesher workflow(dynamesh) to sculptris mode (dyntopo) while Blender is doing it the other way around. Having more options in Blender is always a good thing :)   

Well, it's not an "either or" proposition. It's a "both and." Still, nothing really tops Voxel sculpting for freeform sculpting, without worrying about topology or self-intersection issues and other niggly little problems geometry sculpting can present. That's why I really prefer 3DCoat to anything else because of the flexibility to jump back and forth between the two, without having to worry about losing SubD levels and such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I've been doing that Chris P tutorial for the last few hours and is it ever fun. I'm really amazed because I've tried a couple times to pick up Blender and it was sheer torture, but now it's actually a pleasure to use. Normally when I start working with a new program there's always mysterious glitches that drive me into a hellish rage. That hasn't happened yet. 

I'd rank this tutorial up there with Pixelbahn's Maya tutorials on You Tube. 

:)

 

 

lens.JPG

Edited by L'Ancien Regime
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
9 hours ago, AbnRanger said:

Well, it's not an "either or" proposition. It's a "both and." Still, nothing really tops Voxel sculpting for freeform sculpting, without worrying about topology or self-intersection issues and other niggly little problems geometry sculpting can present. That's why I really prefer 3DCoat to anything else because of the flexibility to jump back and forth between the two, without having to worry about losing SubD levels and such.

You're correct, seems he found a way to keep both methods. Not complaining :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As i remember, multirres is completely broken. It requires a pretty big change in how store and calculate multiresolution levels that is not so much a bugfix but likely more of a partial rewrite of the system.

Which is why pablo is making a new data system from scratch.

source

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • Advanced Member

If blender keeps developing in the direction its going, I can't see how 3D Coat can continue to grow (user base) in the future. This is actually something to think about. If Blender's sculpting, retopology and painting tools continue to get better, due to the nature of a true modeling environment, substance designer like texture creation via nodes, a real time viewport and tons of high quality addons, what does 3D Coat really have going for it? Food for thought.

Edited by RabenWulf
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
42 minutes ago, RabenWulf said:

If blender keeps developing in the direction its going, I can't see how 3D Coat can continue to grow (user base) in the future. This is actually something to think about. If Blender's sculpting, retopology and painting tools continue to get better, due to the nature of a true modeling environment, substance designer like texture creation via nodes, a real time viewport and tons of high quality addons, what does 3D Coat really have going for it? Food for thought.

Well, this is a question for the developers, what are they aimed at. I wrote a lot to them, wrote a lot on the forum, that we need to change something, move somewhere, improve user support, and so on, 90% of this remained unanswered and unchanged.


So far, 3D coat for me is a cheaper (and buggy) replacement for zbrush. However, in terms of sculpting, the blender will develop for another two or three years to the point that at least it will look like 3D coat.

In fairness, remove all glitches from 3D coats (after all, in the free blender, in version 2.79, they are not there, the stability of the program is close to 100%), and zbrash may not be needed.

Perhaps the only things such as non-destructive Boolean operations, which are in the blender and a number of other programs, and I saw something similar in the zbrash, in 3D coats are unlikely to appear in the next five years.

 

 

One of the things that so far leaves me with 3D coat is a convenient and simple interface, unlike the insane number of tabs in zbrush, most of which are “just there”, waiting for their moment. It is clear that everything can be set up there, and even studied, but why, after going into the 3D coat, after a couple of minutes I was able to create something intelligible, and in zbrush I stumble about where there are “layers” and generally how to choose objects? ..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Quote

This is probably a  superfluous post for most of you but I'm finally getting around to trying it, and learning its interface and it's beautiful. I'm thinking it's better than Maya's.  It's got a really good feel to it. EEVEE is awesome. Is there another preview renderer out there that's as fast with such great results? It's just amazing to me because Blender was such a steaming piece of ***** for such a long time. 

True? How, then, without any problems, was I able to create this two years ago? (2.79 version)

YUV926-UWCw.jpg

Why do people who see something different from the Maya or 3DS Max interface go crazy saying that the blender is something uncomfortable and incomprehensible, while the blender seems to be the second, after zbrash, to go along the path of combining tools into tabs, instead of copying the interface of the word or calculator, creating an elegant and understandable menu? The problem is not the blender interface, the problem is people who experience duckling syndrome.

 

 

 

At the same time, the current version of the blender, having just pulled off half of the interface, ceased to be convenient and original, adding a bunch of empty and unnecessary places, instead hiding a bunch of familiar buttons that you could get right away in a bunch of other submenus that still need to be expanded and searched them there. The official blender forum is quite clogged with topics that are ignored or even blocked at the same time as no one asked users where to develop further. Perhaps it was a kind of closed ballot, what was the point then? Who gives the donate more, he offers?

As for the Eevee render, it will not be a discovery for anyone that there is a marmoset, which at the moment in some cases is simply more convenient and faster, does not require any baking or anything else. There was such a renderer, an Blender Internal, the actual difference between an Eevee and this Blender Internal is real-time lighting (preview). The essence remains the same, it is still necessary, as in game engines, to bake lighting, adjust reflections and other things.

 

Undoubtedly, such a render is also a cool thing for free, but not everyone needs plastic renderings without realistic lighting. Nevertheless, the render is not something for which it’s worth redoing everything so that “it would be like in Maya”.

 

Edited by Dmitry Bedrik
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
5 minutes ago, Dmitry Bedrik said:

So far, 3D coat for me is a cheaper (and buggy) replacement for zbrush. However, in terms of sculpting, the blender will develop for another two or three years to the point that at least it will look like 3D coat.

I think a lot of artist would love to see a solid zbrush alternative, (cheaper, better UI, better navigation) but so far no one else has really stepped up to the plate to compete on the same level. With Blender ramping it up on a sculpting level, we start to see the cheapest option of all (free). If the sculpting experience is better, there is basically no reason to look at any other buggy paid alternative at that point (which is where 3D Coat sits).

More importantly, I don't think we need another 2-3 years to see that happening, more like a few months with Pablo's sculpting branch developments being merged into master for Blender 2.81.

Just flip through this guy's twitter/artstation to see the constant developments happening with regards to sculpting (even painting and retopology):
https://www.artstation.com/pablodp606/blog/1vEn/new-blender-sculpt-mode-introduction

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

However, if you want to do something detailed, you can not do without working with classical modeling. Let's just say that in this model of the girl there is nothing but hair (and that is doubtful), which could not be done with ordinary modeling. I ask you not to confuse it with "let's then do all the pores with polygons manually."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Reputable Contributor

I think Blender is now making a lot of developers sweat and worry a bit. Not just 3DCoat. Still, there are some distinguishing features that 3DCoat and Substance Painter has that Blender doesn't, in terms of Texture Painting. Andrew isn't going to just sit still. In fact, there are some HEAVY feature additions going on, behind the scenes, like a GPU brush engine, nodes, more of the New Curves tools, some similar features as Retopo Draw (by request) which enhance some of the current tools, etc.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again the same discussion of blender against the world ?  Will everyone speak as reasonable people or as fanboys?

Browse this post to read the countless performance problems that blender has and will not be solved in months but in years.

Blender 2.8 Viewport Performance

I accept that it is very useful for freelancers and independent, but no company uses it without internal support and development.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 8/6/2019 at 5:02 PM, druh0o said:

Yeah, i know that ProRender in C4D (since R19 i think) and all this time no one actually uses it.

Actually I went back to my installation of Pro Render and it had completely erased itself from my computer, nowhere to be found! Then I went to AMD to download it and reinstall it and they wanted me to form an account. They refused outright to recognize my Protonmail account. I suppose they want an ISP based mail account which is ridiculous. It's a free program. Why the security? 

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
5 hours ago, Carlosan said:

And about surpassing Maya, watch this video workflow process and think about how to mimic it on Blender: 

 

 


But the word "animation" was omitted in the topic title. :rofl:  Like "let's ignore that Maya is actually an animation app and it never was or perceived as the best of the best in modeling".

Also, the topic title is barely legal :D
 

On 4/12/2014 at 11:29 AM, Javis said:

- No "versus" threads - Direct comparisons of one software over another are not allowed. Discussions about tools, workflows or development implementation is fine, but absolutely no "app vs app", or derogatory statements about an app. These bring needless debate that too often becomes contentious.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...