Author Topic: Corona for 1 additional software  (Read 77842 times)

2013-04-24, 15:32:44


  • Administrator
  • Active Users
  • *****
  • Posts: 9048
  • Turning coffee to features since 2009
    • View Profile
There is a guy who will start implementation of Corona into 1 new 3D package immediately as a bachelor thesis assignment. Since Maya will be hopefully handled by the OpenMaya project, and there won't be Corona for Blender, we don't know what software to do next. There is a poll, but its results are completely skewed by some raid of C4D users from Russia. So I would like to ask for your opinion on what software would be most suitable.

Our criteria are
  • Free/very cheap licence and SDK for university students
  • Wide user base in need of a realistic renderer
  • General good health of the package (is fast, capable of production work, active development, generally bug-free, ...)
  • Ease-of-use of the application for end users
  • Reasonable C++ API
  • Plenty of documentation/example implementations of plugins
  • Official support for developers (e.g. discussion forums)

Our candidates are
  • Modo
  • Cinema 4D
  • Softimage

I am not making a poll this time (since it would only result in another raid), but I would like to ask the active Corona users for their input on the matter - ideally a statement WHY is one software better/worse candidate.

Rendering is magic.How to get minidumps for crashed/frozen 3ds Max | Sorry for short replies, brief responses = more time to develop Corona ;)

2013-04-24, 15:48:44
Reply #1

Ludvik Koutny

  • VIP
  • Active Users
  • ***
  • Posts: 2557
  • Just another user
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Softimage is certainly the least interesting candidate for several reasons:

- It is strongly VFX/Animation based software, and that is the area where Corona still lacks a lot of proper solutions and features.

- The community is not that large

- They have very good integration with Arnold, and i do not think we want to go in war with Arnold at this time

I would prefer Modo, as it is more Viz oriented software, while C4D seems to be aimed more at motion graphics. Also, Modo's pricing policy is a bit more reasonable than C4D's, and Modo is overall really great software but lacks a good renderer.

Unfortunatelly, i have no idea which of the two is more 3rd party renderer friendly.

2013-04-24, 16:04:24
Reply #2


  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 787
  • Corona Omnomnomer !
    • View Profile
i think there is a lot of users for cinema4D especially that the next release will be a great combination with the next Aftereffects cs7 and it's a great thing for motion designers and 3d artists; so i can imagine corona renderer profiting of this big advantage of the next cinema4d that will grab  a lot more users.

2013-04-24, 16:08:55
Reply #3


  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 1446
    • View Profile
    • racoon-artworks
I also think that Cinema4D is the best choice - It's the most intelligent choice:
- many users interested in a fast archviz renderer
- many users pissed by the current available solutions for c4d
- maya/softimage have both special groups of users which imho need more fx capabilities.

For me, it's not a very difficult decision, especially for a commercial product.
Any sufficiently advanced bug is indistinguishable from a feature.

2013-04-24, 16:25:22
Reply #4


  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
I also think that C4D integration would be the most logical choice. Softimage is (as previously stated) more geared towards VFX and Modo already has a very strong render engine that is pretty similar to Corona. Cinema 4D also has the biggest userbase out of the three alternatives so it's logically the best choice.

However speaking out of pure "want" I would say that Modo is deserving of another render engine :)

2013-04-24, 16:28:07
Reply #5


  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 59
    • View Profile
    • APtecture
I choose Modo for:
-I think  the most popular render engine for modo at the moment is it's internal render engine; on the contrary cinema4d has a wide range of vray user, an implementation of mental ray an all other package (modo too) like maxwell and arion
-modo is cheaper then cinema4d and has everything in one version not prime/broadcast/visualization/studio...I heard someone saying that the price will increase, but at the moment is cheaper, maybe in the future there will be time for other implementation like cinema
-modo doesn't need thousand of third party plugins, for example scatter proxy, that cause a change in the corona code.
-modo has connection with nuke (!!!!)

My first thoughts....

2013-04-24, 18:51:22
Reply #6


  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 69
    • View Profile
I guess Cinema4D is good for now. Why?

- Modo is great for modelling and good for creepy guys like Houdini & Naiad fans. Although it's a compelling project, but not much popular.
- Modo has it's own internal "corona", and I heard it's good. Why need another one? :)
- Softimage is for vfx pro's & geeks. It's like more for prMan, Arnold, etc... but not for Corona.
- Cinema left :-) It's popular. Cheap. Simple. Etc, etc, etc. And it also has everything ported to it - vrays, shmirays, etc. So Corona should be ported to it too.

I don't have anything against Modo, even like it more than Cinema (although I didn't touch it yet, as Cinema either). But let Modo be second. And Cinema first.

That's my humble little emotional opinion.

2013-04-25, 02:18:00
Reply #7


  • Guest
CINEMA 4D for sure.  Like everyone says it's made to do VFX.  Corona is so fast it can easily be used to give high quality animations of VFX work.  Modo is still struggling with anything animation related.  Modo is also buggy, crashes, and got a lot of users mad at it from the last release because they didn't go the direction the users wanted.  In contrast if I ever use C4D and it crashes I am in complete shock and soon realize it probably crashed because of a plugin I just installed.
« Last Edit: 2013-04-25, 02:21:18 by Realish »

2013-04-25, 07:38:05
Reply #8


  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 749
    • View Profile
well from those candidates I think cinema4d makes most sense... Softimage indeed has good arnold integration but arnold itself is close to unusable for archviz (extremely slow for doing interior GI) on other hand, there's not that much archviz done using XSI as there are with cinema or modo.

2013-04-25, 10:35:49
Reply #9


  • Users
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
+1 for Cinema 4D

  • Cinema 4D almost has no Vray alternative renders
  • Cinema 4D`s built in physical and GI renders are not so fast as Modo`s one
  • Cinema 4D has weak materials, they look more plastic than same materials in other software
  • Cinema 4D has great built in tools for broadcast and animation, so Corona will add some "stars" for this product and...
  • Cinema 4D is the eaysiest to learn software, so it share its popularity with Corona

2013-04-25, 10:46:40
Reply #10


  • Users
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
+ 1 for Cinema

I would love to see a C4D version of Corona. And I am totally in for testing it.

2013-04-25, 11:33:20
Reply #11


  • Users
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
I consider that Corona has to be integrated exactly in Cinema 4d. It speaks for itself that Adobe together with Maxon integrated Cinema 4d into its product so it means there is a demand! I will be glad, if Corona appears in Cinema 4d))) As it is a very good alternative of Vray!

2013-04-25, 12:26:09
Reply #12

Visual Pie Workroom

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 36
    • View Profile
+1 for Cinema 4D
My choice is unambiguous - Cinema4d has no alternative but to vray4C4D, which lags behind its competitor 3dmax
« Last Edit: 2013-04-25, 13:14:43 by Bioswamp »

2013-04-25, 12:43:21
Reply #13


  • Guest
C4D,  i hope.

2013-04-25, 12:44:09
Reply #14


  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 14
    • View Profile
I work in Cinema4D.  (+)
definitely buy this render.