Paul, I do agree, but I see a tendency to use one main app plus a ton of plugins and specialized tools like vray, octane, zbrush, marvelous designer, substance, maxwell and so on (and of course unity or unreal). Because all those apps got very complicated in the meantime and they do cost a heck. Of course there are still a lot who do use several suites, especially with modo (it's in my opinion the best modeler around, it's great for uv-ing, but there is almost no vfx (so houdini is used for that) and for animation maya still is better suited. A lot of Pros have blender around, be it just as a free alternative to realflow.
More and more do use affinity instead of photoshop by the way.
No disrespect meant, but I do ask you, what gap do you have in mind that Cheetah could fill? I know there are people who do use it for converting models from one format to another. Apart from that (and my (partly intendended) use of it) I honestly don't see what it can do faster or better than one of the bigger suites. How would you sell it to somebody who already has cinema4d or modo?
Please, don't get it wrong. I don't say, there is no use for Cheetah in such setups. It's just that I don't see it.
It fills a gap in your heart that you never even knew existed, between on the one hand, the joyless cross that one must bear using 3D software dictated by your school, place of work, status etc., and on the other hand, nothing.
3D users come in many shapes and sizes, and they will all find their own way to the software setup that suits them, their clients, skill levels etc. Yes, the bells and whistles that are present in other packages are not present in Cheetah, but how many users would use even half the features in C4d, Modo, Maya etc. Cheetah won't be used in the next Hollywood blockbuster, but none of us work in those studios, so it's probably a moot point.
I have been reading your posts for a while, and there is no question that you have a very discerning and critical eye, and an ability to see flaws, qualities etc. in 3D work that is well beyond most 3D users, and certainly most clients. There was a fellow on here years ago whom we all loved, Luke Bocchinelli, who was making money using Cheetah and Photoshop for archviz, and we've had other guys that have come and gone do the same.
So the question really is : what are you trying to achieve, and who is the client, and how much time / money are they willing to spend to get what they're after ? For smaller clients, you can get very good renders with Cheetah and a little Photoshop, and they will never know the difference between that and a render with a more expensive package. You may notice the difference, but then, who is the audience ? You ? Other 3D experts ? The one who pays ?
I think also one must accept that if a package appeals to hobbyists and general 3D enthusiasts, then the work that is generated will be at the hobbyist level. So is that a limitation of the software, or the user ? I'm convinced that if we could get Cheetah into the hands of a few pros, and get them to knuckle down and try to do some great work, then it could be done. My personal feeling is that the potential of what Cheetah can do has not been shown as yet. And the points I make here are not limited to Cheetah. If someone can get a decent archviz render out of Cinema 4D, without using vray, maxwell etc., then they deserve a medal.
So for simple projects (still or animated), assisting with import and 3d scene building, nice renders with minimal overhead and minimal outlay, then Cheetah would I think work well.
