Is combustion 2008 Worth it?
by Jan Lange
on
Jan 18, 2008 at 4:19:23 pm
Hi All,
I have C4 and have used it whenever After Effects was not able to do a particular thing for me. Now I want to know if it is worth upgrading to Combustion 2008?
1. Has Autodesk made this application better in any way?
2. Does it still crash every 10 minutes when you use particles?
3. Is this going to be the last version of Combustion?
I am really struggling with this decision, so I guess the biggest question of all, do I absolutely have to have this new version if I already own Combustion 4. Any help would be appreciated Thanks
Re: Is combustion 2008 Worth it? by Dean DeCarlo on Jan 18, 2008 at 9:37:01 pm
Do you absolutely have to have it? Obviously not. After downloading it and giving it a looksy it's clear that the core of the program is essentially unchanged. However, for $199 or whatever it is it's worth it to me as I use it all the time and the few niceties that are in there are worth that much to me. I'm have the opposite workflow though. I use Combustion for everything and AE when I'm stuck. And I've practically never been that stuck. Download the trial and check it out. It really isn't very much money if you are using it on paying gigs.
Re: Is combustion 2008 Worth it? by Kenneth La Rue on Jan 19, 2008 at 5:16:51 pm
I agree with Dean,
For $198.00 it is worth it to some people and not to others. The colour warper is amazing tool but if you are not doing a lot of color work then it would mean nothing to you. The new UI improvements were created based on user request and I personal love them.
Check out the free tutorials I have posted on my site to really see what 2008 offers.
Re: Is combustion 2008 Worth it? by Jan Lange on Jan 19, 2008 at 6:13:42 pm
I am not hearing anyone comment on the particles crashing combustion every 10 minutes (or less) thing. I C4 does it all the time as did c3. I am not imagining this problem, I have reproduced it on multiple machines, and have a bunch of friends that have the same experience. Are we sweeping it under the rug or does C2008 still crash the same way?
PS. Ken, I am assuming that you are the one teaching in those tutorial. If so, I just want to say that I own this set for C4 and that the majority of my Combustion knowledge is due to your tutorials. Thanks, you are a great teacher.
Re: Is combustion 2008 Worth it? by Kenneth La Rue on Jan 19, 2008 at 6:56:31 pm
Jan,
I do not have the particle problems you are having. I'm not saying they don't happen to people because I know they do. But most of the time I hear or have seen it happening to users it is because of the graphic card or drivers. What is your card and are the drivers current.
Ken LaRue
Autodesk Application Engineer
Combustion / Toxik / Flame
Combustion Training DVDs
http://www.thestreetproductions.com
Re: Is combustion 2008 Worth it? by Jan Lange on Jan 19, 2008 at 7:22:51 pm
Ken,
I am running NVidia Quadro FX 4500, all drivers up to date. Machine is Alienware Graphics workstation with two dual core processors 4gb ram. Running windows XP all updates up to date. Frankly, as I said, I have run this on both NVidia and ATI based graphics card machines as well as AMD and Intel based machines. The particle issue (umm...bug) is real. I have used particle Illusion v2 (combustion shares a codebase with it) and it is completely stable and never crashes. The point I am making is, that the problem lies with combustion. My theory is that no-one at Autodesk is willing to admit that the problem exists, which is why it is still around. Kinda like the king has no clothes.
This particle issue is just one of those things that is a well known fact in my circles. Don't use combustion for particles unless you absolutely have to. And if you absolutely have to, don't expect to make your deadline.
The real question Ken, is what kind of computer are you running that is so stable with combustion?
Re: Is combustion 2008 Worth it? by Kenneth La Rue on Jan 20, 2008 at 6:15:01 pm
Jan,
I have a HP xw9300 with the same FX card as you. When using particles I always commit the particles to disc when I'm done with setting them the way I need them. I never create multiple particle layers at once without using commit to disc before I create multiple particle layers. I just did an experiment in a NTSC D1 comp 300 frames with 6 layers of footage. When I created one particle layer with 2 emitters I had no problem. Then I added a particle as an operator to one of the other layers and I did not crash but the first particle layer
Re: Is combustion 2008 Worth it? by Jeff Brown on Jan 21, 2008 at 2:00:52 pm
I can confirm difficulties working with particles; on a nVidia 4500 as well. I too find the only reliable thing is to render to disc once I have a particle setup I like, then just use it as footage in the comp.
I'm still finding the 'normal' vs. 'bold' text bug affecting me on network renders with some fonts...
And-- I am waiting for my C*2008 upgrade to arrive any day now. Because it is, flaws included, still the best software for the work I have to do. Someday that might change, but for now, I am more efficient with C* and workarounds (render text to image, commit to disc, etc.) than I am with other software.
And the color warper is worth $200 to me too.
Re: Is combustion 2008 Worth it? by Iasos Iasos on Jan 22, 2008 at 12:59:26 am
I too have been frustrated with the Particles in Combustion 4.
They are tantalizing beautiful, but oh, so frustrating because of continuous crashes. I suspect that there is no easy fix, since (as I understand it), the Particles component of Combustion was NOT written as software within Combustion.
But instead, it was licensed and IMPORTED from the person that wrote the particles software called PARTICLE ILLUSION. Trying to make 1 piece of software work smoothly within a larger and very complex piece of software is shakey - at best.
Re: Is combustion 2008 Worth it? by Keith Hill on Jan 22, 2008 at 5:05:31 pm
Is the upgrade worth it?
I just got my c2008 copy yesterday and am going over the tutorials to get an understanding of the new features. I haven't used the Particles much because of crashing I experienced back in version 3, which is when I bought Particle Illusion 3. I haven't looked back at the particles in Combustion since then. Plus, Motion 3 has particles now as well.
I will have to try the commit to disc as Ken describes and see if that works for me.
As far as the new features, they are cool. As long as it works for me I will ride this thing out and see what happens with Combustion going forward. Trying to hamstring a application to protect other products is risky IMHO. Others are pressing technology to be more innovative, more affordable and faster. With this being the highway of choice for most of us it will be a case of 'cream rising to the top' and others will falter.
I can see myself using the workflow enhancements in the Schematic View. Overall, I thought it was a weak release but I understand and am now expecting great things from the new Product Manager. We'll see how aggressive they are now. No excuses.
I have often thought that one of the things that would position Combustion in the middle of everything is to allow 3rd party developers to be able to create plug-ins as is the wide-spread situation for After Effects. Combustion would at least be a very formidable conduit for AE systems and the outside world.
Keith Hill
Lighted Path Films | Productions
http://www.LightedPath.biz
Dallas, TX
G5 2Ghz, OS X Tiger (v10.4.10), Final Cut Studio2, Autodesk Combustion v4.0.5| Cinema4D, Mocha DVX100A 24p Camcorder
Re: Is combustion 2008 Worth it? by Jan Lange on Jan 22, 2008 at 5:24:04 pm
You know, Autodesk is still charging $900+ for a new copy of combustion 2008. I think that it is a travesty that they have not fixed this particle issue after so many years, and still expect folks to pay this amount of money. I am almost emabarassed for them. I did not start this post with the intention of making this statement, however it just gets me angry that they will allow this application (which is very powerful) to languish like this. There is really no excuse.
This upgrade to me clearly signifies a pure revenue play on their part. Frankly, at this point I am not willing to even give them $200 for an upgrade since that would be supporting this behavior, and can better be spent on plugins. There is absolutely nothing that combustion can do that cannot be accomplished with After Effects (not fanboy) and a few other products, which are supported better and together still cost less. Thank you guys for enlightening me, and confirming what I feared was true.
Re: Is combustion 2008 Worth it? by warren BONES on Jan 23, 2008 at 4:11:21 am
[Keith Hill]"Trying to hamstring a application to protect other products is risky IMHO"
This is a ridiculous statement. It is a simple and oft repeated fact that Combustion's basic architecture has certain limitations that cannot be overcome without a complete rewrite of the code-base, similar to what was done with Fusion 5. So Autodesk created a whole new application called Toxik to address these same issues. I suppose it made more sense to someone in Montreal than either killing off Combustion and promising to be back in a few years with something new or getting all your customers to upgrade to a less-than-stable complete rewrite with no backwards-compatibility to the old version. Instead yo have the choice to continue to use the application you have now or, if you need some of what the new technology offers, you can choose to buy Toxik at a reasonable price [that will hopefully ensure its long-term future].
Combustion's biggest problem is that it is too cheap - it doesn't generate enough income to justify putting huge resources into.
[Keith Hill]"I have often thought that one of the things that would position Combustion in the middle of everything is to allow 3rd party developers to be able to create plug-ins as is the wide-spread situation for After Effects."
I think this has been tried [ReVision:Effects and Trapcode] but these are small operations that also need to see a return on any development work, which I gather never happened because Trapcode haven't kept 3D Stroke current for Combustion and Peder, the guy who makes that stuff, seems to have zero interest in updating it. Unfortunately, people aren't going to spend money or waste effort just because you or I might want them to. That said, the vast majority of AfterFX plugins work perfectly well in Combustion and the top-tier developers, like GenArts, always try to ensure that they remain that way.
I'm a contractor for Autodesk at the moment but, unless otherwise stated, all opinions expressed here are my own.
Re: Is combustion 2008 Worth it? by Keith Hill on Jan 23, 2008 at 4:54:01 am
Warren,
Hey man, you have inner knowledge and I can appreciate that. I'm not familiar with the technical challenges that you refer to but I believe you. I don't write code at all and have no desire to. All I know is that when I started up my little operation back in March '04 I had to choose between what appeared to be the standard that everyone had (After Effects) and Combustion which through it's systems siblings had a growing reputation and a bright future. I chose my compositing trek with Combustion and for the most part have been pleased and frustrated at the same time being that I started on MAC. Long story very short. It has been way too long and too frustrating at times trying to figure out the deal with Autodesk/Discreet and what it's plan was/is for Combustion. When I bought the app I was sold on Combustion. All the inner corporate wrangling matter not to me. I was sold a product and want the best from it. Period. If Combustion is such a pain for Autodesk to keep up to speed they need to man up and kill the thing instead of going silent for years with no communication to it user base. That's ridiculous!
Now that I think about it. If Autodesk/Discreet treats third party developers the way they've treated Combustion users that speaks volumes. I probably wouldn't be to enthused about developing for the app.
Keith Hill
Lighted Path Films | Productions
http://www.LightedPath.biz
Dallas, TX
G5 2Ghz, OS X (v10.4.10), Final Cut Studio 2 | Combustion 2008 | Cinema4D | Mocha | DVX100A 24p
Re: Is combustion 2008 Worth it? by warren BONES on Jan 24, 2008 at 11:42:33 pm
[Keith Hill]"... they need to man up and kill the thing instead of going silent for years with no communication to it user base. That's ridiculous!"
I don't see how that is anything like accurate. After the release of v4 on Windoze, there was significant work done to try and get the Mac version up to the same standard. That took a long time, for various reasons, but in the life of v4 it was both carbonised and made universal binary. For Mac users, there was less than a year between a universal binary, which only got a minor point-release version no, and the release of Combustion 2008. It seems a long time for us Windoze users but, as a result of the work being done on the Mac, we received fairly regular bug-fix releases along the way. At no time did I feel that Autodesk was abandoning Combustion, and for much of the life of v4 I was freelancing, so I knew no more than anyone else about it.
Recently I have been using both v4 and 2008 on some private projects and I think 2008 is a very solid release. In practice I find its usability is far better than I expected, given the list of improvements, and the more I get into the Colour Warper, the more gob-smacked I get.
[Carlos Zapater]"And don't you think in three years the program could be rewritten or almost?"
That, of course, would depend on the resources available and, as I said, the team were putting a lot of work into the Mac version in that time.
"The communication channel between Autodesk and his customers are nearly null."
I agree completely and am constantly agitating for that to change. You can thank the Enron collapse for Autodesk's reticence - the new laws passed as a reaction to that have made them hugely paranoid about saying anything to do with future development of anything. And the simple fact is that a flagship product like AfterFX will always have a more certain future than a bottom-of-the-pile application like Combustion. i.e. Combustion is the first application to be disrupted when there are problems in any other product.
[Steve Green]"It's hard to find sympathy for Autodesk when it was they who jerked the price around in the first place."
Yep, I couldn't agree more here either. But what's done is done and at least the current management are looking for a way forward. How successful that is will very much depend on sales, which makes it easy for anyone to have at least some influence on its future.
[Jan Lange]"Try going through a list of particles (simulating a user trying to find just the right one) and then finally choose one. Put it in your comp and then make it move a little. Same result with opengl on or off."
Wow, I have never encountered that kind of behaviour with Quadro cards. I can do anything with any of the included particle shapes and libraries with 100% confidence. I can do multiple emitters, change around shapes and colours and behaviours at any level without the slightest problem.
If you can give me some definitive, reproducible steps, I'll see what I can do. I agree that commit-to-disk is no kind of workaround.
"Really honestly, in 4 years they have not put out any patches."
Actually, there was 4.0.1, 4.0.2, 4.0.3 and 4.0.5, all of which contained a decent list of fixes.
"Lastly, even though I have a Quadro FX card, it is not actually mentioned as minimum requirement. Not all of their customers can afford a graphics card that is as expensive as a whole computer."
My QuadroFX 560 cost me less than US$300. If you can afford Combustion, you can certainly afford workstation graphics at that price.
I'm a contractor for Autodesk at the moment but, unless otherwise stated, all opinions expressed here are my own.
Re: Is combustion 2008 Worth it? by Jan Lange on Jan 25, 2008 at 1:04:08 am
Warren,
Your quadro card was not discussed, please check in the posts above. I believe we are talking about the Quadro FX 4500 (it's not $300). As an aside, the combustion box still does not mention the need for any version of Quadro card.
Autodesk had patches early on, but not anything recent (I checked week in and week out). Sorry working on the mac version, not an excuse, they should have hired more people before screwing their user base. Frankly, now they expect that user base to just keep on shelling out $900 or $200 (for an upgrade) like little sheep, when there is newer more stable and better software out there. I like Combustion, I would like to use it, but frankly Autodesk's attitude towards me as a user does not deserve my loyalty. Again I say, this should have been called a patch, yet I find that they did not really patch much, they threw in a few new features to get another $200 out of us sheep.
Are you sure your machine is not an "Ideal" machine? What else is installed on it? Do you have at least 3dmax (they work together you know) Denying that the particle problem exists is expected (Autodesk does this all the time), now what about other users posting that it does exist. Funny how you did not make comment about the exception handling I suggested. I am taking that as an "I was right" about that.
Let me also just share with you why this particle issue could be really important to them. The combustion particles are really nice. There is often a need to tie a particle generator to a tracker. Combustion trackers are really nice. This is the only area where Combustion really has an edge on after effects. I realize some of you are in love with the work flow etc, but an unstable program makes these things useless. How about sharing that with your handlers on the other side.
Re: Is combustion 2008 Worth it? by warren BONES on Jan 29, 2008 at 5:01:57 am
[Jan Lange]"the combustion box still does not mention the need for any version of Quadro card."
Sure, but like any other application, you will get better results with a better card. You can work with software OpenGL and take the card out of the equation altogether if you like, but a good card will give better performance.
The point I was trying to make is that you can get workstation-class performance for not much money and there is no reason to get an expensive card if you don't want to.
"Autodesk had patches early on, but not anything recent (I checked week in and week out). Sorry working on the mac version, not an excuse, they should have hired more people before screwing their user base."
I beg to differ. 4.0.5 was released on 29 May 07, about 6 months before the latest version became available. In case you live in a bubble, hiring people costs money. It also causes problems; I think it is much smarter to have the same people working on all versions so that problems can be solved for every platform in one hit.
"Frankly, now they expect that user base to just keep on shelling out $900 or $200 (for an upgrade) like little sheep, when there is newer more stable and better software out there."
Really? Like what? There is nothing that I am aware of that could replace Combustion for me. In fact, there is nothing that comes close.
"Are you sure your machine is not an "Ideal" machine? What else is installed on it?"
It is a Shuttle SN 27P with Athlon64 X2 CPU, 2Gb of RAM, QuadroFX 560, 1x HDD for stuff and a two-disc RAID-0 for Toxik. It is a very basic, but highly portable system. It has Combustion, Toxik2007 [with full Oracle database], Toxik2008, 3DS Max, Maya, Xara XtremePRO, Corel v12, Orion Platinum, Cool Edit 2000, Soundforge 7, SynthEdit, SynthMaker and a few other little things, all running on WinXP SP1 [SP2 slows down RAIDs, which affects Toxik]. Until I bought my laptop a few months ago, it was my only PC at home and I used it for everything, including all my internet activities. Now I am starting to use it as my Toxik demo machine as it works much better than my work M90 laptop, thanks to the RAID.
[Jan Lange]"Denying that the particle problem exists is expected (Autodesk does this all the time), now what about other users posting that it does exist. Funny how you did not make comment about the exception handling I suggested. I am taking that as an "I was right" about that."
I made no comment because I didn't try to reproduce it. I didn't try because I am almost certain it would not happen to me. I find Combustion to be at least as reliable as any other application I use. I just finished an 8 minute audition tape, doing about 20 hours of visual FX and colour-grading of an off-line Avid cut, without any crashes. Yes, it displayed some of its usual quirks when I had been working for several hours, but a quick restart while I made a toilet-stop was all it took to get it running properly again.
Particles work perfectly well, although not as well as they do with the M90's 512MB QuadroFX 2500Go card. They are rubbish with the GeForce card in my personal laptop, but I knew they would be going in. I'm not suggesting for a moment that you don't have problems with your set-up, I was just remarking that you are the first person I have encountered with a Quadro card who has. That is a simple fact.
"How about sharing that with your handlers on the other side."
I no longer work with Combustion at Autodesk but I know they are aware of some issues. The problem is that these things need to be reproducible if anyone is to sort them out and often its not possible, for whatever reason. I'm not sure how accurate it is, but someone told me that the 4.0.5 patch fixed every single bug that had been reported. Clearly that is not the case from the perspective of some users, so you have to think that issues are not being raised properly. If you cannot fix the problem, you should get your reseller involved - he is the guy who can escalate it through the system. That is definitely a big plus for spending the extra $50 on a reseller over the on-line store.
I'm a contractor for Autodesk at the moment but, unless otherwise stated, all opinions expressed here are my own.
Re: Is combustion 2008 Worth it? by Carlos Zapater on Jan 25, 2008 at 8:05:37 am
[Jan Lange]"Try going through a list of particles (simulating a user trying to find just the right one) and then finally choose one. Put it in your comp and then make it move a little. Same result with opengl on or off."
[Bones]Wow, I have never encountered that kind of behaviour with Quadro cards.
I do. My HP 6200m workstation with Quadro FX4500 does the same thing. Although i ever work with OGL off cause render errors with that library. When i turn it on to try it there are no improvements on performance in particles nor movements of layers.
Also, it doesn't support various tranfers modes between layers, so... imho it is not worth to pay a large amount of money in a decent ogl card.
Re: Is combustion 2008 Worth it? by Dean DeCarlo on Jan 25, 2008 at 10:31:15 pm
I don't work with OGL that much either but there should be at least some difference when you turn it on. And particles will be dog slow without it. I'd suspect maybe a driver problem? If you turn on Use OpenGL then go in to the About OpenGL box under the About Combustion box it should say your card and the various opengl plug ins that are associated with it. If it says it is a generic card then your driver isn't set up properly. I had this problem for a while on an old Nvidia 4400 card a while back. Only fix I found was to go to an older driver.
Re: Is combustion 2008 Worth it? by Carlos Zapater on Jan 27, 2008 at 11:29:12 am
Thanks Dean. I'll try it tomorrow at work. In fact is not that there's no improvement with OGL turned on but there is LOSS of improvement. Impressive, isn't it?
After i wrote my previous post i thought the same with the drivers and run out a few OGL demos to see if they were installed properlly. There were no problems with them. But i didn't know the "About OpenGL" thing so i'll check it out.
Re: Is combustion 2008 Worth it? by Eric Craft on Jan 25, 2008 at 3:59:15 pm
[warren BONES]"How successful that is will very much depend on sales, which makes it easy for anyone to have at least some influence on its future."
Well Autodesk needs to fix problems with their pricing and reseller network as well. BTW anyone looking to upgrade from 4 to 2008 it is cheaper through the Autodesk Store than through a reseller. Autodesk store SRP $199, reseller SRP $249. They did atleast fix the upgrade from 3 to 2008, though it does suck for 3 users now. Originally Autodesk Store 3 too 2008 SRP was $199, and reseller SRP was $399. They have changed the store price for 3 to 2008 to $399.
I talked to my reseller about this and he was told that the Autodesk Store price was wrong, for the 4 to 2008 pricing. End result resellers aren't going to be pushing or trying to make sells when you can get it cheaper direct from Autodesk. In turn this makes it difficult for some businesses to upgrade since if they go through a reseller they must pay 25% more, before taxes, reseller mark up, etc.
In the end the Combustion reseller network is being put between a rock and a hard place, because Autodesk can't get their act together. I have tried get some answer from some Autodesk representatives, but so far have gotten no answer.
Warren, you have my e-mail if you can get some answer on this please let me know.
Re: Is combustion 2008 Worth it? by Rafael Amador on Jan 26, 2008 at 1:44:53 pm
Hi Keith,
I had the same experience that you. Some 4 years ago I had to decide between AE and Combustion and I took Combustion.
Autodesk had neglected Combustion and the Mac users.
BTW Autodesk applications are double price in Europe.
Re: Is combustion 2008 Worth it? by Carlos Zapater on Jan 23, 2008 at 8:01:44 am
If that's the problem (Combustion is too cheap) i wouldn't mind to pay 2000$ for a good and upgraded version of C*. I think many of us would agree.
And don't you think in three years the program could be rewritten or almost? At the actual state of thinks i wouldn't mind to wait a bit more for the team to finish its work.
I'm writing watching all from outside, of course. So don't take it personally. I'm with Keith. The communication channel between Autodesk and his customers are nearly null.
Re: Is combustion 2008 Worth it? by Steve Green on Jan 23, 2008 at 9:25:58 am
It's hard to find sympathy for Autodesk when it was they who jerked the price around in the first place.
I bought it when it was a little less than the price of Max, but some genius decided that they were going to hike the price by a huge amount.
Then (when they presumably got very few sales), they panicked and dropped the price like a stone to the point where they have little budget to do anything with it.
Unfortunately, I don't see any way out of this - depending on how many 2008 upgrades have been sold we might get one more (slim) release and that will be it.
Re: Is combustion 2008 Worth it? by Eric Susch on Feb 9, 2008 at 7:22:58 pm
[warren BONES]"Combustion's basic architecture has certain limitations that cannot be overcome without a complete rewrite of the code-base, similar to what was done with Fusion 5. So Autodesk created a whole new application called Toxik to address these same issues."
This may be the current mantra at Autodesk but Toxik started development around the same time as Combustion so I don't see how this could be true. (And yes, Toxik was in development for a very long time before it was released.)
Re: Is combustion 2008 Worth it? by warren BONES on Jan 23, 2008 at 3:55:46 am
I've never had any stability problems with particles whatsoever. I bet you are trying to make particles from footage or PAL/NTSC res stuff, right? That will always cause problems because OpenGL expects textures to be square images at powers of two resolution [128x128, 256x256, 512x512, etc]. Try using these sizes for your particle sprites and things will work wonderously. If that is not the problem, then I have no idea what might be because particles never give me any stability problems on Quadro cards.
I'm a contractor for Autodesk at the moment but, unless otherwise stated, all opinions expressed here are my own.
Re: Is combustion 2008 Worth it? by Jan Lange on Jan 23, 2008 at 4:35:54 am
Nope, crashing on the out of the box standard particles. Not only that but if one leaves the particle preview too long it will crash. Try going through a list of particles (simulating a user trying to find just the right one) and then finally choose one. Put it in your comp and then make it move a little. Same result with opengl on or off.
For the record, I don't think that these workarounds of committing to disk are really acceptable. For a package this expensive, one should not have to do workarounds to accommodate lax quality assurance.
Maybe you can convince Auto desk to test this thing. Particle illusion 2 does not crash, on the same particles. Now since you are a contractor, lets just talk a little programming. How about you get them to put some try catch blocks around the particle functions. How about having a catch all block in the wndproc so that it gives a chance to save one's work WHEN the program crashes. I mean really, a full program crash is inexcusable these days. How about convincing them to allocate some QA resources to this application. Really honestly, in 4 years they have not put out any patches. I am sorry but frankly denying that the problem exists or blaming it on hardware is just a cop out. Sure blame OpenGL, when really the problem is the software calling the OpenGL API. Why are the combustion functions that call OpenGL not wrapped in try catch blocks? I think for $900 we could expect some try catches heh?
And while you are at it, maybe suggest to them that when the program terminates unexpectedly it sends them a report like it does with 3dsMax. Maybe then they will stop denying that this program crashes on tons of machines.
Lastly, even though I have a Quadro FX card, it is not actually mentioned as minimum requirement. Not all of their customers can afford a graphics card that is as expensive as a whole computer. I think the hardware thing gets thrown at anyone that mentions the crashes when really the bugs lie in the application.
Re: Is combustion 2008 Worth it? by Bill McKown on Jan 23, 2008 at 3:06:33 pm
Hey,
I really like the particles in C4 as I don't have any other program that does them as well or easy (not even AE), but I must say it does crash quite a bit. (Save early and often!) I haven't tried the save to disk thing Ken metioned but usually it is the 2nd copy of a layer with particles that causes it on my PC.
And I really think Adesk put their development talent into either Combustion or Toxik not both (actually seems like they already have).
Re: Is combustion 2008 Worth it? by Eric Craft on Jan 23, 2008 at 5:43:30 pm
I honestly don't know if the PI technology works well as a plugin for AE/Combustion. At one time there was suppose to be a PI3 plugin for AE from WonderTouch, but it has never surfaced. It was suppose to be released in the 4th quarter of 2004.
One problem I have seen is that combustion can become flakey if you try and change things while it is still updating. I have also found that expressions can be flakey for the same not letting it finish updating issue. One way to help with this, atleast it helped me in the past, is disable all thumbnails in Schematic view.
I really hope the OSX world doesn't do any more major changes as this has been a major hold up with the last few versions from my understanding.
Re: Is combustion 2008 Worth it? by Keith Hill on Feb 10, 2008 at 4:39:45 am
You may just have a point about the 'power of two' thing in Particles. In using Particle Illusion this is one of the things that they point out when making your own logos and such for use in the application. I'll have to try that in Combustion and see if that's the issue with the crashing I had in the past.
Keith Hill
Lighted Path Films | Productions
http://www.LightedPath.biz
Dallas, TX
G5 2Ghz, OS X (v10.4.10), Final Cut Studio 2 | Combustion 2008 | Cinema4D | Mocha | DVX100A 24p
Re: Is combustion 2008 Worth it? by Scott Osborn on Aug 29, 2008 at 8:05:17 pm
Eric,
> That was the intial release price and it has changed...
> current MSRP for the Combustion 4 to 2008 upgrade is $350.
Huh. First time I've heard of software increasing in price over time....
