Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Today
  2. I have an object which I fractured with Voronoi Fracture. I added a Rigid Body to it. I have a Gravity Object (from Simulate->Particles) which pushes the fractures down with high speed for a second. I have a plane down (actually is a cube made as a plane) there to which I added a Collider Body tag to which the fragments will collide and bounce and finally settles. The problem is that the some fragments penetrate that plane/cube (going further down) and I don't want that. How do I stop the fragments to penetrate the plane/cube? I managed to reduce somehow the number of the fragments which penetrate the cube by making the cube a lot thicker (but it is still hollow inside).
  3. Wow...that is impressive. I do agree, TFD is still a great package and I have no idea how Jawset makes money given all the free updates. A very generous developer if you ask me (he must do this a side job and for the praise of those who use TFD). A very crowded field indeed but I am still going with my rank ordering for the reasons listed. I would like to learn more about FumeFX but so far, that intro video (while enticing) is not enough to sway me given that I have XP and TFD. In fact, I would imagine a large base of C4D users who do fluid sim's have either or both of those packages so FumeFX will have its work cut out for them to attract new users. Now, there is a growing criticism against C4D for NOT having its own native fluid package given that all its major competitors at its price point have fluids and for the aging TP module. Not sure how that is going to be addressed, but I suspect it will at some point. Will it be in R21? Not sure. But if C4D does implement fluids at some point, I would suspect that it will also offer similar viewport performance to FumeFX given past criticisms against C4D's viewport performance that they have worked to improve. So will one of FumeFX's advantages (viewport performance) be replaced by C4D's own native fluid package at some point? No one really knows. .....but (as 3DKiwi often says): Fun times ahead! Dave
  4. Good summary Dave. I tend to agree though I don't want to speak definitely about a product I've never tried. For me...I don't imagine I'll be investing so much money in another one trick pony, esp. if that one trick is non-GPU accelerated simulations. That's becoming a must-have IMO. I mean consider what is being done realtime in game engines with GPU performance: Now this isn't as rich or detailed as TFD or FumeFX, but that speed means a lot. The ViewPort display accleration via GPU in FumeFX is sweet. We don't have that now in any of our products. And FumeFX does seem to have some features we don't currently have in other products. I just don't think it's enough to interest me given price, alternatives and what I imagine of sim performance.* *I don't know real world FumeFX speeds, but CPU is so much slower. Jawset has been incredibly good and generous. TFD stable, fast, with nice quality....and they haven't had a paid upgrade in forever. Version after version it just keeps producing at no additional costs.
  5. FumeFX does look like an interesting product, but I would imagine the cost to be around $700 (the same as the Max price). That is less than the X-Particles/Cycle4D bundle price (around $900) but for $200 more you can do so much more than fire and smoke (fluids, grains, fracturing, cloth, dynamics, OpenVDB and a whole new render engine). Now, there are some good controls that I find interesting within FumeFX for controlling the simulation, like C4D's FFD and setting some conditions using effectors within FumeFX itself based on velocity, etc. But those controls pale to what can be done if you use particles to shape your smoke FX. I did not see anything in that video on whether or not FumeFX works with Thinking Particles in C4D. Art directing explosion and smoke effects with X-Particles question/answer structure is just plain powerful and now XP has also incorporated Fields into its particle group structure which just takes particle control to an entirely new level of control. Plus in XP, you can use fluid particle advection to power cloth and physics simulations as well or use it to drive the motion of your MoGraph objects. Plus, you can pass everything through the OpenVDB modifier to get some truly interesting results (like smoke turning into water bubbles as seen in the XP reel). Plus XP has multi-physics capability in that a fluid simulation can drive a cloth simulation which in turn can drive a smoke simulation. That is an advantage over TFD, FumeFX and even RealFlow. Realflow for C4D has multi-physics but only within its own fluid/smoke simulations (true multi-physics capability exists within the Stand Alone version of Realflow, but that would be an unfair comparison as we are discussing C4D plugins). To the best of my knowledge, RealFlow for C4D and FumeFX has no capability to work with other non-fluid dynamic simulations but as XP now has cloth and rigid/soft body dynamics incorporated into its software, those boundaries are blown away. So again, the advantage goes to XP. Now TFD's advantage over FumeFX is that it is GPU accelerated and it works with X-Particles. That was an important capability for TFD before X-Particles incorporated ExplosiaFX. So that just leaves TFD with the unique advantage of GPU acceleration. Given that TFD also works with X-Particles still makes it a smarter choice than FumeFX at this point. But as you can infer, I am leaning towards XP as the best overall solution. So if I had to rate all the fluid packages out there today for C4D, it would be: X-Particles (it just has everything...and I do mean everything) TFD (GPU accelerated makes it unique and it works with XP....sooo…..) Real Flow (great engineering grade software, but too slow). FumeFX (Last place based on the information from the video. Hopefully we learn more in the future that will give it a unique advantage over its competitors). So FumeFX has some tough competition within C4D. The only potential advantage to FumeFX would be the ability to handle massive fluid simulations with less effort than XP. There is nothing to point to that being the case, but I would be interested in hearing about that from others who use FumeFX today. GPU acceleration is important, so even TFD still has FumeFX beat. But compared to XP (both CPU based), XP is (for the reasons listed above), the better choice. Its power, control, ease-of-use and capabilities just can't be beat. Dave
  6. Yesterday
  7. Thank you. Going to try again tomorrow. it literally just needs to stick/align smoothly on his back the same way it’s standing now, like a tattoo almost.
  8. I have a plane/cube which is fractured with Voronoi Fracture. When it collides with another object and the resulting fractured objects flies all around I want those objects to emit Thinking Particles (imitating dust and small debris). Any ideas how to do that? (no, I don't have X-particles and I am not proficient in Xspresso).
  9. the problem is your character. it has overlapping non connected meshes. you can see pretty clearly where the problem areas are if you uncheck "high quality" in you boole objects attributes. so it does subtract the character correctly, but the areas that have overlapping geometry get added in again. it's not a bug or a limitation, it's expected logical behaviour. to fix this you'd have to change your character mesh, connect the overlapping parts properly. but since you have r20, you could also simply just use volumes.
  10. it's working as expected. it's flipped, but you can easily change that by rotating the axis of your ornament mesh. maybe you should try to explain what you expect it to look like. as an alternative there's a free plugin called magic projector by nitroman. https://nitro4d.com/product/magic-projector/ btw, you should check "regular grid" on you extrude to avoid those shading artifacts.
  11. Sure! of course i don't mind.. But since i am in this to learn, it would be great if you can share with me what the best solution to get this to work.. it's a shame it might be problematic with Booles, it seems super easy on basic objects.. the file is attached Thanks! WE ALL HAVE A HUNGER 44.c4d
  12. Hey guys, I'm trying to get this pattern onto my model (like a tattoo almost) and for some reason its not working like i hoped it would. It just kept freezing or not doing anything at all so I split the back cus i thought it might be too heavy and added a uvw tag to it. It does something now atleast but its reaally slow and still doesnt want to align to his back, does anyone know why? or does anyone know a different way i could get this pattern on it? x
  13. Booles are problematic enough on their own, but booles within booles even more so, especially if you just accept the default settings, and ignore the limitations booles have around not working with non-contiguous meshes. You should try the volume builder for this sort of thing ideally - it is a lot more powerful and is likely to give an ultimately nicer result. We could also probably persuade your booles to work with a few settings changes, but you'd need to upload the file... CBR
  14. hey guys, i am using Boole to substract a circular shape from this character like the attached, so far it's worked good. Now i want to do the same thing but substract the character itself from inside a box. It doesn't seem to be working, what am i doing wrong? The character and box are correctly overlapped so i'm sure theyre on the same XYZ.. this is a screenshot of what it currently looks like And this is a quick sketch to explain what i want to do exactly.. Thanks!
  15. you might be better using the INSYDIUM online forums or Discord. But that said. Try FluidFX and constraints to get that effect.
  16. You are using procedural animation techniques with the noise in the fields. It is very hard to match the in and out point of the animation this way. Most likely the problem is the noise setup and not Octane. Renderers do not change animations. You could try to animate the noise intensity in at the beginning starting from zero percent and animate out in the end down to zero again to have a matching frame.
  17. Last week
  18. Hi thank you, I'm just trying to figure out if it's in octane or its in cinema itself because the animation seems to work. But then when I render it in Octane it doesn't work. So I'm just trying from both angles. Thank you for your understanding
  19. You don't need to do multiple posts about this in different sections. It is true you are using Octane, so that should be in the title, but it is not yet clear if Octane is the problem, so this doesn't necessarily belong in the 3rd party renderers section, hence why I moved it to miscellaneous Questions for you. I'll retitle this thread which seems to make most sense now. CBR
  20. Yes, with Cloner or Fracture and time offset in effectors :)
  21. Hello, I would highly appreciate anyone's help on this. I have this video in Loop - Where you can see in minute 00:29, the loop jumps. it happens everytime the loop closes(every 900 frames = 29 seconds). Please I just need to set these strings to rotate randomly and close the loop. It is rendered in octane, and when I do test with the cinema render, the movement is fine, and it looks like the lighting is jumping in octane. But from many other tests I did, it looks like maybe its the loop itself, becuase the light of this scene is only an HDRI environment which doesn't have any animation. Please, I really need help as it its for a big project. If you have maybe another solution to create the same effect that can close the loop I will be thankful forever! Shira
  22. You can find 2 TP presets in the content that do this. One for guiding particles along a spline, the other to make them follow exactly
  23. Hey Guys ! Hope someone can help me here on a x-particles 4 Simulation.. i have to render a cream effects so simulation with viscosity and stiffness, indeed near from toothpaste too. i finded this tutorial: https://vimeo.com/122409448#t=274s and i though to myself, wow damn ! this is exactly what i have to do !! problem is that the xp fluid solver has changed between x-particles 3 and 4, and with the news solvers of the fourth version, i failed to approach this kind of render... with the 2 fluid solver, i havent at all this render : i tried many ways, but if someone know, a tutorial, or have an idea to approach this render, its save me ! Tks
  24. I believe the gradient tool was rewritten for R20, and it looks like your image there involves quite a lot of those. I wonder if that has something to do with it... CBR
  25. I open the same file in R20 and R19. As far as I can see, the settings are the same. Colorspace is the same (sRGB), no compression tif, 16bit, etc etc. But R20 renders image with desaturated colors/less contrast ... it's slight but also obvious. Anyone else had this problem?
  26. @Macurt the script is just for flying my legocopter in the viewport (for fun). When I used to dabble in helicopters, I had a different system for movies - a convoluted XPresso method (using similar math) where the aircraft follows a target on a spline using the distance to target to control speed. Here's a Black Hawk flying round some free buildings from Pixel Lab and here in Greyscalegorilla city free Black Hawk https://free3d.com/3d-model/black-hawk-uh-60-12229.html free buildings https://www.thepixellab.net/freebies
  27. Yes - just extended the timeline into negative frames. CBR
  1. Load more activity



C4D Cafe is the largest CINEMA 4D community. We provide facilities for discussion, showcasing and learning our favorite software :) Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and much more. If you need to find solution to your problem or otherwise ask for help, Cafe is the right place.
  • Create New...