Author Topic: Corona for 1 additional software  (Read 38205 times)

2013-10-24, 17:27:31
Reply #45

poko

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 73
    • View Profile

2013-11-24, 00:37:52
Reply #46

tanguybod

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 48
    • View Profile

2013-11-26, 07:26:25
Reply #47

teknikarsitek

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 26
    • View Profile
I want to ask there will be a Corona version for the SketchUP ?
yes .. sketchup please

2014-01-13, 19:33:50
Reply #48

davemahi

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 100
    • View Profile
    • iamstatic
That is an interesting set of options.

1. MODO:
My vote would be here. I think it has the most room to grow, and a great set of tools for modeling. I also like that they are now partnered with the Foundry, and the possibilities with the Nuke integration for comping all the beautiful Corona EXR passes :)

2. C4D:

In Toronto it is used heavily in broadcast animation. So unless there will be a bunch of options for animation, and all the tricks that go into it for that type of work, I am not sure if its the best option? But For the C4D users who do Archvis stuff, I'm sure they would have other opinions?

3. XSI:

I think this is not a smart choice as they have Arnold, and is very animation/VFX focused.

EDIT: Saw the post above about Arnold. I think it fills the need for what people do with XSI. But I do agree it is the most out of all of them to need a realistic render!
« Last Edit: 2014-01-13, 19:37:55 by davemahi »

2014-01-14, 09:43:37
Reply #49

Alexp

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 155
    • View Profile
+1 sketchup or cinema 4d

2014-01-14, 10:01:55
Reply #50

Elviz

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 80
    • View Profile
    • Elviz 3D Visual Arts
Cinema 4D
Elviz - 3D Visual Arts
www.elviz.co.il
elirender@gmail.com

2014-01-14, 13:55:36
Reply #51

MastStudio

  • Guest
I am new to this forum and to corona but its amazing. I personally just feel limited with 3ds max (maya, rhino & modo user).
I just really agree with those who thinks modo and corona would be a perfect match!! I have used modo since 301 and I love it wonderful modeller. But the renderer always lets me down and i think all the people who are trying to make high quality archviz.. exterior and interior shots with modo feels the same... total disappointment.
Foundry is pushing modo towards studios and new users and its in general very exciting times we just need a renderer like corona.

2014-01-14, 16:22:41
Reply #52

davemahi

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 100
    • View Profile
    • iamstatic
I am new to this forum and to corona but its amazing. I personally just feel limited with 3ds max (maya, rhino & modo user).
I just really agree with those who thinks modo and corona would be a perfect match!! I have used modo since 301 and I love it wonderful modeller. But the renderer always lets me down and i think all the people who are trying to make high quality archviz.. exterior and interior shots with modo feels the same... total disappointment.
Foundry is pushing modo towards studios and new users and its in general very exciting times we just need a renderer like corona.

I agree that Modo would have been the better option over C4D. I wish you did not feel that 3ds Max was limiting, it may be old and not the prettiest on the block, but it is a beast to get so many different types of work done, and fast! It worries me a bit how people think of Max. I have used C4D and love the interface, but it is no replacement for Max.

But back to Modo. It has the better chance for Archvis/product desing users that is for sure, and the partner ship with the Foundry is huge.

2014-01-15, 14:32:43
Reply #53

szymonsz

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
MODO - it lacks a high quality render engine.

Cinema has vray - what they need corona for ? Okay I know ;] everyone these times wants corona. But Corona for Modo wouldt have any competition - modo doesnt have vray plugin. Corona would be the only choice for modo

2014-01-15, 17:46:09
Reply #54

Marvey

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 185
    • View Profile
not only cinema has vray... Maya has vray too.. the point is not witch software has others engines to render. The point is corona is just superior.. so we want it in cinema4d, maya etc etc

2014-01-16, 16:29:00
Reply #55

MastStudio

  • Guest
But potential wise Modo is much more interesting (sure I am personally interested:))! There is as mentioned NO competing plugins! its a very modern modeller! and has a faster growing userbase than the others... And more importantly because of the foundry.

2014-04-11, 13:31:23
Reply #56

Pixelatedvertex

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 35
    • View Profile
+1 for modo, it's already a great software and has a very fast growing user base, currently, there is a lack of 3rd party renderes for modo, none except for maxwell, but octane is currently in beta stage and chaos group has officially announced vray for modo, that should be ready in a few months. So putting corona's foot in the door here before the competition snatches up most of the users would seem like a good move, in my opinion.
also, the foundry seems like a great bunch of guys to communicate with on matters of plugin development.

2014-04-11, 13:45:56
Reply #57

Ondra

  • Administrator
  • Active Users
  • *****
  • Posts: 8896
  • Turning coffee to features since 2009
    • View Profile
The problem is, that the lack of other renderers usually indicates some hidden problem either in user base, licencing, or technical stuff
Rendering is magic.
Private scene uploader | How to get minidumps for crashed/frozen 3ds Max | Sorry for short replies, brief responses = more time to develop Corona ;)

2014-04-11, 14:01:19
Reply #58

Pixelatedvertex

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 35
    • View Profile
My guess would be, the lack of 3rd party renderers could be a mixture of modo being "the new kid on the block" and its default renderer being good to a point, where it could be considered serious competition for most other renderers (considering it comes with modo for free and the level of integration). As for user base and licencing, i can't imagine any problems there, there's a lot of 3rd party stuff (not rendering related) popping up for modo and the users seem to be buying it. About the technical aspect of the implementation, I can't say anything on that, being programming-illiterate, but the foundry boasts about a great API for modo, so I have no reason for not believing them, at least until I hear otherwise from someone who understands this stuff better than I do.

Either way, the decision has been made, so i'll keep hoping for some skilled programmer to come along in near future to help with modo integration.

2014-04-11, 15:18:15
Reply #59

Ludvik Koutny

  • VIP
  • Active Users
  • ***
  • Posts: 2562
  • Just another user
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
The Modo is hardly new kid on the block after almost 8 major releases. If it's a kid, then it's more like that 30 years old guy who still lives in his parents' basement playing online games all the day and night :)

Modo API may not be that bad, bud considering that there are no properly integrated 3rd party renderers (not just exporters), maybe except Slowwell, it's probably not so awesome either. The biggest problem why no one is pushing their renderer in Modo is IMHO Shadertree solution. It is incredibly hostile to both 3rd party renderers and users. So that's probably one of the major obstacles.