!Restored: Cinema 4D CE 6

[Karl Ottenstein]

Ola wrote:
I purchased Cinema 4D 8.2 and was wondering what the best way to export from Archicad and workflow. How does the rendering time vs result compare to Artlantis. Just purchased Piranesi also, I believe you can create a Epix file directly in C4D now

thanks

Lots of new toys! 😉

I only have C4D XL 7 - so AFAIK, there I have to use 3DS and Vedute to go into Piranesi. Nice if 8.2 allows it directly.

3DS format works well from AC to C4D. See various notes and comments in the archives at:

http://www.escribe.com/software/archicadtalk/

and there are also some good comments at:

http://www.fred-speaks.com/phpBB2/index.php

Some of those guys will hopefully re-post their comments here with some nice screenshots of the parameter settings dialogs (hint, hint).

As for speed, comparing C4D and Artlantis is difficult because C4D can do so much more than Artlantis, particularly as far as lighting goes...if you have the "Advanced Render" module (or the XL package). For comparable quality on a fast computer, I don't know that you'd see the difference. With a dual processor, C4D wins since Artlantis won't use the other processor. As soon as you use a radiosity solution, C4D will start to slow down (the race depends on your parameters and number of processors - or even network rendering, and option there and not with Artlantis) - but the results will astound you compared to Artlantis 'global illumination'.

[For example: if the C4D 8.2 CD contains some of the same sample scenes as XL7... look for a folder called 'Radiosity-LIght'. There's a JPG there ("Light") that is a wonderful demonstration of lighting effects that C4D can do and Artlantis cannot even come close to. Load the sample scene file in C4D and render it as a sample of how long such a thing takes on your computer. Not bad at all on mine. I've attached a cropped section of that image for others to see here ... image copyright Maxon Computer I should imagine.]

Including human time, Artlantis is a no-brainer IMHO - wins hands down for quick renderings.

Even if you cannot create the EPix file in C4D ... you can create the file in AC or Artlantis, then render the (same sized) image in C4D and finally import that image as the new Save RGB channel in Piranesi. Mix and match.

Have fun!

Karl

[Anonymous]

Karl wrote:
Wow. Very nice, Michael!!

Karl

Thanks, I am pleased with how it turned out. I would have used ArchiCAD to model, but it was easier to get the rounded shapes modeling straight in Cinema.

[Anonymous]

Question:
Who of us AC - C4D users actually utilise the modelling functions of C4D
Of those user's with a full understanding of C4D, do you find this additional modelling ability to be of help, and to what extent do you take it
I guess at times when I've got a model in C4D with most of the texturing work done & I find I have to, say, split a wall section in two to give them different materials, I could really do with some C4D modelling knowledge, save having to go back to AC...
Is there any other really handy modelling techniques available in C4D that anyone else uses regularly to tweak their models

Regards,
Justin

[Anonymous]

"jp_walford" wrote:
Question:
Who of us AC - C4D users actually utilise the modelling functions of C4D
Of those user's with a full understanding of C4D, do you find this additional modelling ability to be of help, and to what extent do you take it

Justin, I am in the same boat. I have not learned the modelling tools in C4D at all. I use it mostly to stage a scene to be rendered. I understand the scaling, movement, and rotation of objects. I am sure that the breakdown of a complex geometric object and further modelling would be helpful.

It hasn't been until just lately that I fully understood the materials export. Currently I am building a AC template that contains a logical Material Pallette. All material names are 8 characters, the colors are texture colors. Which means that I have set up 10 shades of tone for each color hue. This does two things for me.

1. When I have my model in AC, the OpenGL displays a model that is WYWIWUG - What You Want Is What You Get. Whenever I set up a material using the color picker in AC, the resulting look of the color could be different in the OpenGL window -- and the color would be vastly different when exported to C4D. With a color texture, the color is exact. A tan wall with a slightly darker tan reveal looks exactly the way it should in the OpenGL window.

2. Then when I export, I relink the colors to the C4D materials using the link name that shows up at the top of the material editor in C4d. Again when I render the model colors look exactly the way they should in C4D. This method is also used for the rock, grass or stucco textures I may have for both programs. Then where the bitmap textures fail to provide a realistic look, C4D has it's own procedural textures for things like smoke, hase, water with ripples, etc.

For the hue tones I have used a Zone System of 10 shades. Anyone know what may have inspired that?

See this link for a very nice collection of Free C4D Shaders:

http://www.maxon.net/deepshade/

If I ever get the proper time to complete the Color texture project I will post the template file + color textures for anyone to use. Why reinvent the wheel?

Mark Burginger

[Anonymous]

I'll will try to put together a quick tut on modeling in Cinema as soon as I get some free time. I have a few small projects on my plate right now, but hopefully they will be done if a few days.

Also it will be for version 8.x. It should carry alot over into 7 and 6, but not everything. Plus, today Maxon announced Cinema 8.5 as well as a Sketch and Toon rendering Engine. Looks allittle more advanced than the one built into ArchiCAD 8.

[Anonymous]

I did a little test of Archicad export options, namely .OBJ & .3DS formats, with a test model. ie: a few skewed walls, some empty openings & a floor. I saved it to a wavefront format (as you suggested Michael), & the .3DS as I've tried & proven to date. I opened both files in C4D, modified them to be identical & ran test radiosity renders on each.
.3DS clocked in at 18:05min.
.OBJ clocked in at 17:49min. a small time saving, but a saving, nonetheless.
Problems I appreciate that saving as a wavefront format still creates the object/materials heirarchy, but it loses all archicad allocated colours/textures & doesn't import cameras & lighting. Obviously having a template with most often used textures, lights, camera's etc would be handy at this stage.
The .3DS format is the export option I'm most familiar with, but there are sometimes glitches in the materials transfer, some objects get re-named, some get grouped in with un-like materials. (A real annoyance without any C4D modelling ability).
And finally, both formats managed to glitch the geometry of a relatively simple model. Just not good enough.
My question: If Graphisoft isn't (to date) going to support a top-end renderer internally, then can they please re-visit the export options available to us

Regards,
Justin Walford

[Karl Ottenstein]

Hi guys,

See Stefan's updated tutorial - he talks about some of the differences that he found between 3ds and obj formats:

http://archicad-talk.graphisoft.com/viewtopic.php?t=184

Very useful and I plan to work through it with an example 'soon'.

Perhaps we can discuss the tutorial here, since no discussion is allowed once something is a 'tip' (closed forum). And, of course send in nominations to mailto:techtip@graphisoft.hu for him to get a tip of the month for it. 😉

Karl

[Anonymous]

This is a very, very nice explaination of AC to C4D. Thank you Stephan!

I especially enjoy the Radiosity information since I never really understood it all.

I was wondering if the note I have in my personal tip book might help. I found that in order to keep things accurate for imperial units Feet, I would set the 3DStudio Max import factor in Cinema at 3.25. Then set the Cinema scale to feet.

This seemed to work for me, is this information still accurate? To test I built a 20' square box in AC then made a 20' square Object in Cinema, they looked like a match.

I think it is an important goal to keep a scale since eventually someone can create lamp objects in Cinema that accurately simulate 60 watt, 150 watt, fluorescent, etc. The lamps would need to be created for both radiosity and ray tracing since the two react differently when rendered.

Mark

[Djordje]

Burginger wrote:
I was wondering if the note I have in my personal tip book might help. I found that in order to keep things accurate for imperial units Feet, I would set the 3DStudio Max import factor in Cinema at 3.25. Then set the Cinema scale to feet.

?!??! One inch is 2.54 cm One foot is 30.5 cm The ratio above probably means that one meter is 3.25 feet, while it is really )based on the above) 3,29.

Graarh ... have to fight this tomorrow ...

[Anonymous]

Djordje wrote:
?!??! One inch is 2.54 cm One foot is 30.5 cm The ratio above probably means that one meter is 3.25 feet, while it is really )based on the above) 3.29

Yes, thanks DJ - when I did this about a year ago I used the trial and error method. The math you show makes sense.
A+

[Anonymous]

Hey Everyone!

MacAddict December edition has a full copy of Cinema$D - uh I mean Cinema 4D CE 6 --- FREE ----

Render limitation 640 x 400, but full featured and it imports all existing Cinema 4D files. This is a great way to get started with Cinema 4D. I downloaded my example file and rendered it in 35 sec. on my wife's G4 eMAC.

Cool, and it comes with a 400+ page manual in PDF form. You now have no excuse to give this program a whirl.

Mark Burginger