>>928963
I dunno but it sounds awfully similar to 'Casador' which means fapper in my dialect.

>>928963
Pretty much. I had high hopes. Animation is good but rigging is an afterthought at best. Maya is still King.

>>928990
Isn't this an animation tool and not a rigging tool? Of course you'd build the rig in a different software and maybe use this tool to make some as-needed edits and adjustments.

>>928992
you cant get your rig into it, you cant reapply a maya "bridge" rig while in it, it breaks down when you jump, and you sure as hell cant export a rig

File: bob.png (300 KB, 641x346)

300 KB PNG

>getting bought, tech-gutted and then phased out by Autodesk in
>3
>2
>1

>>929037
That would be the best case scenario.

>>928963
nope
release version is up
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEq_PJXTUOM

>>928993
???
Cascadeur is an animation software not a rigging software. You're talking about a control rig, which is a completely different thing and Cascadeur's control rig is top-notch. It still lacks stuff like facial animations and whatnot but all of that is still in development.

>>929671
>>929673
such sad cope

>>929674
the software is free you mongoloid

>>929673
>Cascadeur's control rig is top-notch
factually having looked at siggraph presentations on rigging i know this is just not even close to being true

>>929687
free software doesn't have limitations you "mongoloid"

>>928963
Not enough AI. Fuck animating, may as well just suffer with Maya for a little while longer until AI can take a skeletal mesh and animate it at runtime to do whatever it needs.

Can't wait to only need to define a model, skeleton, and maybe some details like muscles etc and have everything else done for me.

>>929691
>factually having looked at siggraph presentations on rigging i know this is just not even close to being true

"I watched a video and I'm an expert now."

NGMI

>>929709
I wrote over 7000 lines of python based on a siggraph presentation, autodesk masterclass, and dvd on bipedal rigging by the guy who wrote the rigging pipeline for the original lord of the rings trilogy

Is this going to replace animators?

>>929710
> lord of the rings trilogy
> release date: 2001
> current year: 2022

Ok, boomer.

>>929881
A boomer is someone 65 to 85 yo. Im 35.

The guy doing the siggraph presentation, autodesk masterclass, and dvd did it years after the trilogy concluded and it is far more advanced than anything you get in cascadeur

>>928963
anybody done some work in it yet?
what's the verdict?

>>929900
Ok, boomer respecter.

>>929911
I'm not an animator and I find the posing itself to be very intuitive and fun. I don't really like the GUI from an aesthetics point of view. Looks like oldschool Blender. Plus you get the feeling that of lot of stuff is hidden which it was prior to this new version.

The animation timeline itself would be greatly improved if it had some zoom in-out features like you do in After Effects.

I really like the window tabs. You can work on each character individually by switching tabs and not have to worry about your scene getting too clustered.

Very easy copy-paste keyframe method which makes experimenting non-destructive and easy.

I was planning on going the mocap route but after using Cascadeur I don't need it anymore. I'm still in no hurry to integrate Cascadeur into my pipeline though. I use my own custom rig which is very different from the standard. It was impossible to import it properly in Cascadeur with the previous release but with this new update it seems doable. Still not going to try it, though, because I don't want to pour months of work into a software which is liable to change. Once they iron out all the import-export stuff I'll dive right in.

File: BEAN'd.gif (729 KB, 189x189)

729 KB GIF

>>928963
>Subscription only
Easiest pass of my life

>>929881
People were smarter 20 years ago.

>>929694
You'll be dead first, lazy idiot.

>>928963
>app
Kys

File: Screenshot from 2022-12-2(...).png (106 KB, 921x629)

106 KB PNG

>thought i'd give it a try
>pic is the first thing that pops up when you run it
haha no

>>930336
nys cris

>>930336
just click continue with your spare gmail, that you use for coomer stuff.

>>930395
no
i don't think i will

>>929948
It's free with some limits but then there's >>930336
Makes me wonder if they some system to check what people are using it for.

>>928963
works for my pipeline. seems optimized for low budget game dev. mostly comfy to use. if they never make any more updates I'd still be happy with it. It's obviously not the cure-all some people were hoping for though.

>try to add rig elements
>it says it couldn't find the name of the bone
>the name is right there in the outliner
how is this even possible?

Just gave this a go and and now I am sad that they have a monopoly on this tech.
Manually done animations normally have no way to compete with mocap, but with physics driven workflow there at least is a chance.

>>933689
>they have a monopoly on this tech
It does something Houdini can't do?

>>933690
by this logic Houdini doesn't do anything C++ can't do.

>>933689
>and now I am sad that they have a monopoly on this tech.
but you could do this in both maya and houdini using stock functions since before cascaduer was a thing and studios have their own implementations for many years, except its way better. Its basically a weighted and skinned jiggle node.

>>929982
Procedural AI animation is a thing already. Nvidia's done it

>>929710
video plz

>>929948
>>931226
a one year sub is a perpetual license for that year's version

>>933696
>Its basically a weighted and skinned jiggle node.
I believed you up until you revealed that you have no idea what it is. should have just left that last bit out.

>>933710
What?

Cascadeshit is worse than the rankest type of shit.

i have no animation experience at all and within about 20 minutes i had made a cool looking realistic animation that probably isn't of pro quality, but i'll be damned if it didn't look close.

so yeah, its over for animators is my point lol.

>>933788
show your
>cool looking realistic animation

>>928963
Is Akeytsu better than Memedeur?

>>933805
it used the 2 sabre model doing a bruce lee impression and then getting absolutely blown the fuck out.
its about 5 seconds long.

it looks almost mocapped, beginners luck i guess.

not a fan because of their privacy policy. your model and animations are uploaded to them

>>934784
Jesus they are pozzed

>>933710
lol
what a self pwn

>>934784
WAIT WHAT, OH NO. NO NO NO NO . NO PLEASE NO GOD NO THIS IS A LIE RIGHT?

>>934810
it's snuck into section 2.3.f of their privacy policy.

>>934814
they could have atleast been more transparent, i'd have been fine with it given its free. but to be so sneaky like that...
i know why they do it, its because they want to make sure you aren't using their software for commercial purposes.

>>934816
>i know why they do it, its because they want to make sure you aren't using their software for commercial purposes

FALSE.

It's to train their auto-posing AI thing.

also it's no big deal, literally everything that's "free" steals your data to train some AI, like all of social media for instance

>>934821
oh in that case, i'm not so worried, i'm sure they have the right to do that.

>>934822
"You see, our AI pose system starting doing cock sucking and self-impaling with objects thanks to THIS degenerate motherfucker right here (proceeds to show your picture and info in the documentary)"

>>934824
they do not (cannot) reserve the right to show your private data to anyone.

>>934833
they're a Russian company
who's gonna stop them?
you?
the US government?
the EU?
NATO?
[laughs in Putler]

>>934822
>i'm sure they have the right to do that.

they do
have you ever read a TOS or EULA?
the only reason those things exist is to fuck the user over in case they don't agree with the company's practices


I don't understand why is data-mining such a shock now. It's not 2015 anymore. Get with the times, boomers.

>>934888
being edgy doesn't actually make your uneducated opinions seem more authoratative.

is there a pirated version yet?

>>934888
>have you ever read a TOS or EULA?
None of these are authoritative legal documents in the west.

>>934960
Wrong again. You use the Foundry or Autodesk's software and thus consent to the TOS and EULA. Your company can now be audited and fined at ANY time.

>b-but not authoritative, I dont have to pay the fee....

you have a lot of learning to do son

>>934960
>None of these are authoritative legal documents in the west.

Yes they are.
Do you honestly believe that companies put TOS and EULAs up just for kicks? It's a loophole for them to do what they want.

>"Your honor. This company violated my rights!"
>"Your honor. This moron agreed to the TOS which clearly states that we're going to violate his rights."
>"I see. Judgement goes in favor of Big Tech Inc, so says THE LAW!"
>[laughs in crippling layer fees]

Also did it ever occur to you why companies (like PayPal) keep changing their ToS every few months or so? It's because some smartass sued them for something that they neglected to add in their ToS. The more these companies get sued the more airtight their ToS/EULA become, and the more of a bitch they will make you.

Stop thinking you, a rando, has any power over these evil corporations. You never did and you never will. If a piece of software is useful to you, use it (preferably the pirated version). But if you decide not to use because "muh privacy rights" then you are a fool. You have no privacy rights. You're just a bitch. Welcome to the club of the rest of the fucking planet.

>>934995
EULAs are a "throw everything at the wall and hope something sticks" document. they get updated as new things come into existence to throw at the wall. They have never been used to successfully argue for a limitation of consumer rights. They only serve to draw a line around rights the company wishes to reserve.

Privacy policies are defences that prevent governments from suing companies for violating laws. They're written in a language that addresses the end user because that's what legislature requires of them.

You have a child's understanding of corporations.

>>935006

>They have never been used to successfully argue for a limitation of consumer rights.

most embarrassing statement

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_service

>ToS fuck people over
>people complain to the law
>ToS get modified so people can no longer legally complain
>the people who complained in the first place are saddled with crippling legal fees for the rest of their lives

>WINNING!

lmao

>>935006
Are you being ironic?