Cinema 4D potential

[Anonymous]

There seems to be a lot of negative feelings about Graphisoft's decision to discontinue MaxonForm, especially from those who have spent a lot of time and money purchasing and training the product. However, in the wake of this we have the new Cinema 4D plug-in. This product is extremely powerful how ever you look at it, whether it be as a modeling tool, a rendering engine or even as an animation program. With this in our arsenal ArchiCAD stands to become very strong in its field. However, without the correct knowledge and proper use it will fall by the way side as a tool used seldomly and never reach its potential.
With this in mind I am proposing that we use this topic to discuss how each of us use, have used or intend to use the software. This can then become an impetus for others to learn and eventually invest in the software, strengthening its user base and therefore its support by Graphisoft.
If you own MaxonForm or C4D; what do you use it for? What is your work process? Have you found any work-arounds in MaxonForm or C4D that save time compared to their AC counterpart method?
I invite others to raise questions about any aspect of the software and its potential to AC users.

*I understand that numerous other Cinema 4D forums exist and provide excellent advice, however I am yet to find one that specifically focuses on its use with AC.

[Dwight]

I have used Cinema 4D for years as a way to make higher order elements and also as an intermediate 3Ds import tool.
[Some applications that [allegedly] export 3Ds are smoothed and quickly revamped in Cinema, making them import to Archicad easily - a Poser figure that takes five minutes to import into Archicad as a GDL object can be reviewed in Cinema in three seconds.]

Because the Maxonform plug-in has always called up Cinema 4D if Maxonform was not installed, Cinema/Archicad users have lots of experience with the interchange. I don't think that many users will avail themselves of this application because the vast majority of work is boxy.
It is nice to know the capacity is there, but managing all that splinework takes a lot of time and talent.

It remains best if Cinema makes independent elements since attempting to integrate Archicad's BIM function is complicated by Cinema 4D elements. [As observed by others]

I am very satisfied with Cinema 4D since it not only renders quickly with excellent lighting, it is equipped to deliver very sophisticated surfaces and high quality animation controls. Not that architects have the time to fiddle with such a complex program, but superior results CAN be had.

Another Cinema 4D advantage is inexpensive distributed rendering of animations. If you are doing multimedia, an enormous amount of full-screen work can be generated with the office machinery overnight, not to mention hiring commercial render farm time.

[owen]

They should have done this a long time ago. Graphisoft have never given Maxonform the support they should and i think this move really lightens the resourcing load on supporting the Cinema/ArchiCAD interface. Of course the cynic in me thinks the plugin may suffer the same issues anyway .. but i am trying to be more optimistic these days : )

It has been a while since we have been able to use Maxonform/Cinema4D as a modeler/3DS bridge (due to upgrade issues). But i am starting to again appreciate how handy it is. Currently we are beginning to play with it as a bridge to Rhino (3DS) as one of the guys here is getting into that app (they are working on a native OS X client btw).

Aside from this, I think you will find that the relatively minor price increase going to the full C4D application is well worth it - for all the reasons Dwight covers. ArchiCAD is fine for most of your visualization needs, but Cinema is great for more advanced viz needs and the network rendering can enable production of animations in short time frames feasible.

There is now a Vray plugin for C4D available (~800 Euro) .. i cannot recommend this highly enough. It is ohmyfreekinggod fast and really easy to use. If you are getting C4D i think VRayforC4D is a no-brainer.

vrayforc4d.com

[stefan]

I liked the idea behind MaxonForm: create parametric C4D objects and host them inside ArchiCAD.

They could have even improved it by using a more generic "xref" system for external 3D documents, so you could use "any" 3D application to create complex models.

But linking two applications together ultimately leads to synchronisation issues: they both have different upgrade schemes and there is always a point where you can not use the latest ArchiCAD if you want to continue using a certain plugin...

I would rather have ArchiCAD be flexible enough for full freeform modeling, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Rhino (now in beta on OSX) might be a good alternative for modeling, although it has not the rendering and animation functionality of C4D.

And I bet people would love to be able to do the same with 3ds Max, but that is Windows-only.

[Anonymous]

I don't think cinema is there only for modeling. If you like nurbs modeling, you could use some other programs. Cinama gives you way more:modeling, animation, render(now with vray for cinema it is realy great 3d app)

[Anonymous]

One reason that I started this topic and why I am passionate about the use of MaxonForm and C4D, is that I see it as much more than people give it credit for. It is something that could be used for more than modelling or rendering if people are willing to learn it. Previous replies in this topic raise very informed and valid points, however they appear to see the software as something to be used for one job at a time, moving in and out of AC. Yet I see things differently.
Modern architects are being forced to accept digitalisation in all aspects of the industry, it is revolutionizing the way we design. People often say that everyone doesn't get the chance to design buildings like Norman Foster or Frank Gehry and so doesn't need the ability to create amorphous shapes in their software. However if the ability was there, it would be used. It would give the option to change the way any project is built, no matter its purpose or size and I am sure that there will always be those creative enough to try it.
C4D has the potential to do this. It's XPresso and COFFEE languages allow users to create their own plug-ins and lines of code to effect models, very much like GDL. The only difference is that their are more users of C4D and so these languages are much easier to research and learn. Potentially it might even be able to create things like this: http://www.archnewsnow.com/features/Feature250.htm
This software can push the boundaries of how we design as long as people are willing to give it a try (and GS support it properly).

[Anonymous]

I would rather have ArchiCAD be flexible enough for full freeform modeling, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.





i agree with u stefan, and i think that best solution is to have some kind of a 3d modeling tool in archicad, i dont want to learn one more program to be able to model something and qustion is how many times we need freemodeling in our designs. Anyway, we talk much about ac12 but i think that nothing special will happened when its get out, some new bugs and 1 improvement (that could be implement in ac10 allready
Offcourse, nothing will be done from our wish list cos they in GS know better what we need. As time pass people from GS less and less do they job. Just cosmetic

Yo, GS, read wish list plz

[Dwight]

Chris wrote:
One reason that I started this topic and why I am passionate about the use of MaxonForm and C4D, is that I see it as much more than people give it credit for .... everyone doesn't get the chance to design buildings like Norman Foster or Frank Gehry and so doesn't need the ability to create amorphous shapes in their software. However if the ability was there, it would be used..

With all due respect, you are talking like someone who doesn't build much.

Not that i wouldn't want freeform modeling in Archicad, too, but the whole program is so clunky at polygon imaging, it scares me to think how slow it might get with NURBS elements common in models. My public art work is quite unique with parts derived from many modeling applications. A 40Mg object that forms in Cinema 4D in an augenblick takes literally minutes in Archicad.

But i write, wishing we could more easily do freeform work with Archicad. What i disagree with is your "Field of Dreams" notion: "Provide it and they will design".

Freeform capability in software will not enliven the design world.

The mandate to create irregularity and freeform shapes doesn't come from software. It comes from a client who demands iconic, flamboyant marketing material in 3D form. Software was not used to create the Sydney Opera House or Notre Dame du Haut or many of the fine Olympic stadia of the seventies.

In my thirty year practice, deviating from the rectilinear in any respect causes immense cost increases that can be mitigated by BIM through reduced construction errors, but any lack of modular repetition means goodbye to economy. There must be a clear economic mandate to produce sweeping, wasteful forms.

The Sydney Opera House is notable for the way a complex coupled formwork for the tilted arch ribs grew so that the smaller parts repeated - an essential economy in an outrageous and beautiful structure. They used simple descriptive geometry to develop this idea. Drafted on paper, no doubt.

Your posting refers to a web site where top architects explore irregular and organic form using computer controlled cutters and 3D printing. This is fine for models, but real buildings made from those shapes still come from extruded linear panels of material, whether fabric or metal. Many of our younger users are not reconciled to the fact that buildings are largely made from sticks and sheets. They seek to manipulate an organic, sensual mercury lozenge as if it were a blob of clay and have it magically transformed by cussing men in coveralls into a watertight, energy efficient building.

Fuggedaboudit. Those guys have plenty of reasons to cuss.

At some point the cybermesh being pushed around without regard for gravity or water shedding must transform into sticks and sheets. Archicad is good at this because it forces us to make building parts responding to the realities of how things are made - by extrusion or casting or whathaveyou.

Rule of thumb: If it is hard to make in Archicad, it is going to be hellishly expensive to build.

Many of you might point to Gehry's flamboyant and delightful entertainment, the EMP in Seattle as an example of freeform architecture, but this is not true. These buildings are based in analog models, digitized. And they are also resolved using fairly simple techniques. If you were to study the structural solution of the EMP, you would see steel I-beams sawn and re-welded into torturous convolutions providing rigid - but not very logical - support to the theatric building skin above. This approach doesn't get you to the LEED gold award podium but it does draw people to your happening, man. Far out, eh?

I was visiting the EMP just after it opened and spoke with a construction supervisor. He related that when the unbent building panels were being screwed to the irregular interstitial framing [that extra matrix of sticks between organic skin and convoluted steel structure] their accumulated resistance bent the building enough to mis-align pre-drilled fastener holes in subsequent panels. And so it goes... even the finest software can still miss the mark.

All this said from a free form guy who knows how to build and was taught to get the maximum benefit from structure and materials. People: there's a material and energy crunch out there. Work in modules, already!

And don't build with rice. Rice is for motor fuel.

[stefan]

FWIW, recent techniques of computer controlled fabrication show that for a machine, there is not much difference between producing thousand identical pieces or thousand custom pieces.

This is precisely a point where computer-controlled geometry will become creatable by machines. Machines are good at doing repetitive stuff, but seemingly they are also good at doing 1000 different things. And a computer is a nice tool to give them the input for these custom objects.

I agree that Gehry's designs are fairly classical: sketches and clay models. Only the manufacturing process is digital. But there are many others that embed the digital sculpting tools into their design process (NOX, Oosterhuis). And the efforts of the Smartgeometry group are not to be underestimated too.

So after all, Cinema4D might fit right in there. It has this potential.

[Dwight]

You don't sound like you do much building, either.

Of course, for a computer it SEEMS like the cost is the same for repeats and custom, but once you actually get to designing and organizing each custom piece, and working with something even as straight-forward as waterjet cutting, the design and set-up time is enormous. I say this from practical experience with computer design and executing components and then personally assembling them on site.

But we are talking about an elitist thing - comparing one form of computer-controlled fabrication to another is not really the issue. Comparing computer controlled fabrication with the cost of employing standardized modular elements is what reveals the cost difference - and challenges the designer to justify the benefits of the extra cost of uniqueness, however achieved.

Dumb boxes will be around for a long time. Not that i don't love Cinema 4D and support any effort to improve Archicad modeling.