Maxon C4D to have AMD GPU renderer

[Bullit]

https://www.maxon.net/en/news/maxon-blo ... rendering/

...There are lots of outstanding GPU rendering technologies, but very few that fit this core philosophy. ProRender does. Because it’s based on OpenCL, ProRender will fully support Nvidia as well as Radeon graphics cards on Windows, and as the vendor of choice for Apple hardware AMD is in the best possible position to support macOS.

ProRender’s unbiased path-tracing engine already supports physically-based materials and virtually all the physical rendering attributes you’d expect. Our own development team is working closely with AMD engineers to add key features, and to contribute our own outstanding rendering talent to the open-source ProRender project. We have more developers devoted to the render pipeline than ever before, with many dedicated to integrating ProRender in a way that’s extremely intuitive. We’ll be working over several release cycles to bring you more great features based on ProRender and fully support the fundamental feature-set of Cinema 4D.

What does all this mean for Cinema 4D’s Standard and Physical Render engines? For now, they continue to offer outstanding rendering capabilities, which not only power Cinema 4D but the 3D rendering capabilities of Adobe After Effects, Vectorworks, ARCHICAD and Allplan. While GPU rendering is ideal for most use cases we continue to believe that there’s a place and need for CPU rendering solutions, and we hope to share more information in the future about our vision for the future of CPU rendering in Cinema 4D...

It is not clear what this makes for Maxon-Nvidia(Iray) cooperation i posted while ago. Maybe dead.

[Mathaeus]

As I understand it, they want to show cooperation with both, perhaps something like allowing Houdini engine together with Real Flow on another side. 'We’ll be working over several release cycles' does not sounds good at all. How many release cycles.... Current state with out-of-the-box renderers is not so shiny, I don't see anything 'outstanding', it's more about 'downstanding' shading concepts from 90s. It's only 3d app not using nodes to control shaders. Someone will expect more than state's diplomacy style, we signed agreement about nothing specific and that's it.

[Bullit]

Well they say they have several people, but the whole thing is also dependent to what happens in AMD.

As i look at it they seem to realise they need a GPU render to cover that side in case GPU's get a big advantage over CPU's.

[luchifer]

Well they say they have several people, but the whole thing is also dependent to what happens in AMD.

As i look at it they seem to realise they need a GPU render to cover that side in case GPU's get a big advantage over CPU's.

Its a good move, right now, Octane is the prefered render engine for Cinema users. Motion Graphics arent as demanding as films in quality and polygon count, but it is a demanding market when it comes to deadlines.

They already have an upcoming parternship with Nvidia through Iray, so AMD was the next step.

https://www.maxon.net/en/news/press-releases/article/maxon-announces-technical-collaboration-with-nvidia/

Anyway: Current and upcoming render engines for Cinema 4D: Cycles, Octane, Redshift, Prorender, FurryBall, Iray, Vray, Arnold, Maxwell, Thea, Renderman. Not sure if I missed anyone, but almost all of them are GPU.

[jonmoore]

I think it's another example of a Maxon press release powered by nothing more than hot air. AMD's ProRender was made open source because it sucked and couldn't match the multitude of other unbiased path tracers on the market such as Octane. I can't see what Maxon can do other than say they support the open source initiative.

In the long run (based on what's currently available) I think Redshift will have the greatest impact on C4D users as it's biased (therefore far quicker than Octane) and perfectly suited to mograph projects. Those C4D users currently testing the alpha seem suitably impressed.

[Mathaeus]

There are reasons to have a decent out-of-the-box renderer, like cooperation between facilities. In shops, using 3d app occasionally, or at low level (which is probably a huge majority of c4d user base) it's not easy to explain to boss, why another renderer is needed, beside two that coming in box.
It's not only about GPU - CPU story, it's also about PBR. For now, there is no even a typical PBR basic hard surface shader in c4d. It's only camera that's physical. While old renderer suffers of tons of problems, old fashioned 'repeating' (and slow) 3d motion blur, for example. They had a chance with new CPU path tracer added around 2012, at least to enable ease-to-use realistic rendering (despite the speed), but, they practically crippled this one down to shading level of old one.
Speaking about software in advance is not good for developers. This is not only one 'prediction of future' coming from them in last few months. While these announcements are moderate, without any exact part, I think they are still an unpleasant reminder to Osborne effect, well known in 3d world, too. All these great external renders are available for others as well.

[Bellsey]

I think it's another example of a Maxon press release powered by nothing more than hot air. AMD's ProRender was made open source because it sucked and couldn't match the multitude of other unbiased path tracers on the market such as Octane. I can't see what Maxon can do other than say they support the open source initiative.

In the long run (based on what's currently available) I think Redshift will have the greatest impact on C4D users as it's biased (therefore far quicker than Octane) and perfectly suited to mograph projects. Those C4D users currently testing the alpha seem suitably impressed.

Is AMDs renderer really that bad? After all, I thought it was based alot on Corona, as they had teamed up with AMD to produce it.

[jonmoore]

I think it's another example of a Maxon press release powered by nothing more than hot air. AMD's ProRender was made open source because it sucked and couldn't match the multitude of other unbiased path tracers on the market such as Octane. I can't see what Maxon can do other than say they support the open source initiative.

In the long run (based on what's currently available) I think Redshift will have the greatest impact on C4D users as it's biased (therefore far quicker than Octane) and perfectly suited to mograph projects. Those C4D users currently testing the alpha seem suitably impressed.

Is AMDs renderer really that bad? After all, I thought it was based alot on Corona, as they had teamed up with AMD to produce it.

We trialled it on our Mac Pro's and it couldn't come near Octane or Thea. Our preferred option for OpenCL on OS X is actually Indigo (the open beta of v4). Although to be honest virtually all projects are now output via Redshift apart from the occasional Mantra/Arnold volume rendering projects.

[luchifer]

Speaking about software in advance is not good for developers. This is not only one 'prediction of future' coming from them in last few months. While these announcements are moderate, without any exact part, I think they are still an unpleasant reminder to Osborne effect, well known in 3d world, too. All these great external renders are available for others as well.

But Autodesk, Houdini and Modo does that. Although, on the other hand, Lightwave promised a lot and failed to deliver.

Autodesk Vision Series: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DucKeXM_gHM
Houdini Roadmap: https://vimeo.com/178392971
Modo I saw it in the forums, Lightwave is a well known story.

[Mathaeus]

Speaking about software in advance is not good for developers. This is not only one 'prediction of future' coming from them in last few months. While these announcements are moderate, without any exact part, I think they are still an unpleasant reminder to Osborne effect, well known in 3d world, too. All these great external renders are available for others as well.

But Autodesk, Houdini and Modo does that. Although, on the other hand, Lightwave promised a lot and failed to deliver.

Exactly I thinking about Lightwave Core and transition from Softimage 3d to XSI, long time ago. Autodesk, I don't think so, usually they are just buying the best (and most expensive) thing, usually leaving no competition in field, which is another phenomena ...
I think, nobody will say anything if latest c4d versions were full of new, competitive features, like Houdini for example, even some of them aren't the best thing. But, offer of a few new shading options (already available in Mental Ray for XSI 4 or so), plus a few nice-but-nothing-special modeling ops, and... announcement of undefined agreement... this does not sounds good.
Anyway, their 'We’ll be working over several release cycles' (which in other word means 'not that much in next version') this is funniest thing. Come on, new renderer should just appear in release, maybe not with support for everything, but, should be there, available for everyone to try.

[luchifer]

I think, nobody will say anything if latest c4d versions were full of new, competitive features, like Houdini for example, even some of them aren't the best thing. But, offer of a few new shading options (already available in Mental Ray for XSI 4 or so), plus a few nice-but-nothing-special modeling ops, and... announcement of undefined agreement... this does not sounds good.

I use Cinema quite often, and theres is quite a misconception about what cant cinema 4D do. I have used the new parametric Fracture in at least three projects since r18, as well the new knife tool, wich I use all the time. Cinema is so well integrated that you can use Fracture Voronoi to model, and their plugins are masterfully integrated as well. I can mix Mograph Cloners with Insydium Xparticles, and modify them using a Bend deformer, and with a simple xpresso setup you can have a custom tool from it. I know, Cinema is kinda slow, but changing the core does take some time.

Unlike Autodesk, Maxon knows their Motion Graphics market. So every "little" update they bring to the table, means more tools for an everyday job.

For example, let me ask you this: In a Motion Graphics environment, between a voronoi fracture / new knife tool and Naiad Bifrost, wich one of you think will be used daily and wich one will be used once a year?

[luceric]

For people not keeping up with the news, opencl isn't the good cross-platform alternative to Cuda. It's behind, and it's dramatically broken on MacOS where Apple has abandoned development for it almost immediately after introducing it. So you might do something that works well on Windows but doesn't on macOS, and there is nothing to do, because it's baked in the os.. Apple wants people to write to the "metal" api.

P.s. The Osborn effect is when you talk about your future product and it makes your current one unsellable because it looks like it's going to be abandoned and replaced. Showing an upgrade roadmap does not do that.

[wesserbro]

It's behind, and it's dramatically broken on MacOS where Apple has abandoned development for it almost immediately after introducing it.

I dont want to sound ignorant, but does anyone in CG field seriously care about MacOS?

[jonmoore]

It's behind, and it's dramatically broken on MacOS where Apple has abandoned development for it almost immediately after introducing it.

I dont want to sound ignorant, but does anyone in CG field seriously care about MacOS?

I don't think you sound ignorant at all, and I'm a lifelong OS X user.

Ever since the iPod we've seen a death by a thousand cuts of all Apple's pro product offerings never mind 3d. Logic & Final Cut Pro are great examples of best in class products that have withered under Apple. We used to have a split of Houdini installs under OS X, Linux and Windows. OS X is no longer in the mix as OpenGL support is horrendous (shackled by the drivers Apple distributes).

[luceric]

macOS is thought as the platform of choice for motion graphics, video, and product markettng CG, so yes, people care.
Mostly people outside of Apple, though, apparently
I think it's also a large crowd of small shops that's more likely to buy your GPU renderers. The animation studios are rendering on the renderfarm and stay with well established offline renderers.

[wesserbro]

macOS is thought as the platform of choice for motion graphics, video, and product markettng CG, so yes, people care.

dunno, maybe its just a Jersey thing...