The builds don’t appear to have an overview of what has changed (a few weeks ago, I tried one of the builds and couldn’t get much working). I’m curious what is left to do, what the timeline might be, etc.
It’s still very busy as you can see from the build list/dates. I’m about to resurface from a deep dive into an extensive UI overhaul. This was a larger chunk of work that effectively prevented me from providing video updates iteratively. You can see the new UI in the current 56xx builds. These should also be stable enough for experimentation.
There is one more of those larger chunks left to do, which is the C4D integration. The remaining things can be done iteratively. Also, since the standalone does not have any of these update-blocking chunks left, i’ll keep iterating on the standalone while doing the C4D chunk. Besides plenty of smaller tasks, the remaining major ones are
- C4D integration
- Renderer integration (Redshift, Octance, Arnold)
- Node presets and asset editing
- Several voxelization features
- Several advection features
- Collision objects
- MacOS/Metal port
Will there be integration to other application such as 3DS Max.
Yes, in fact as many as possible. Although the order is still unclear at this point, except that C4D is first.
Are you using 3DS Max lately?
In terms of the big 3 or 4. I think maybe the order can be C4d, Max, Maya, and Houdini. Blender too, but the community isn’t known for buying commercial software.
And of course Lightwave !!
Please do not forget Lightwave!
I think integration into Autodesk products is the last thing to think about.
For 3d max there is free TyFlow, also built-in particles. There are also Thinking Particles from Cebas and Phoenix from Chaos group.
And in general, Autodesk is embedding its Bifrost system in Maya and 3dmax.
C4D is a market that doesn’t have high performance particle systems, Lightwave is possible, but I’m not sure there is a big enough community out there. Blender seems to me to be the fastest growing market. Houdini just doesn’t make sense.
Maybe Modo though …
I wouldn’t really bother with modo. The SDK is awful, unless you confine yourself to Python. The modo C++ SDK was always an afterthought and the primary developer/architect opted for C++ despite hating the language with the fire of a thousand suns. Personal experience, and discussions with various developers that have attempted to work with it show how much pain it imposes and it takes orders of magnitude longer to work with than any other DCC SDK.
EDIT : Not sure why this became a reply to Gregory rather than Han. Forum bug?
Maya/Max has a lot of competition. LW seems to be unsupported by VizRT. C4D you have covered. Blender is growing fast and will be building a new Node system. They don’t have anything great or fast for gas fluids. My pick would be Blender, but the audience is not use to paying a lot of plugins, so you might want to have a low cost and a more robust expensive version. My two cents.
Just read " Advection features
Collision objects " and you made my day :))
I really hope it can simulate follow any shape I want ( like field force in Cinema 4D ) and that Advection features are very necessary.