Jump to content


All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Today
  2. Ok, you tried the 'steps per frames' as well. Have you tried different shape modes, Automatic, Static Mesh etc etc?
  3. that's again not helping you with your problem... take a look at the model in lines mode and you will see that you again have overlaps.
  4. i selected both spheres then Right Click, Connect Objects + Delete, so they became one. will do, thanks!
  5. how did you connect it? with a boole again? you should get familiar with c4ds polygon modelling tools, best to watch a couple of beginner modelling tutorials, then you will understand how i did it.
  6. Because i am learning the program, so better to walk the extra mile sometimes to better understand a function. I've added a couple of spheres like you did and connected them and the result was different than yours. I get what you did. But how can i create that to get the same result as you?
  7. well, like i expected, you didn't connect the mesh, all you did was creating even more overlaps. by connecting i mean not just visually, i really mean making it a continuous mesh. i attached a file for clarifiaction what connected actually means. but again, why don't you use volumes instead? connected_vs_unconnected.c4d
  8. Sure thing. There you go. (Please disregard how messy it looks right now, for the neck i've just added a Capsule to connect the whole thing together, i'm fixing the character later on but just want to get around what the problem is at this point) Thank you WE ALL HAVE A HUNGER 45.c4d
  9. @AlexisB my guess would be you probably haven't connected it properly. can you attach the new file, so i can take a look?
  10. Nice work overall! Personally though, I'd randomize the chairs a tiny tiny bit, like rotate them randomly and adjust the spacing between them a bit more. I know that pictures like this need to look as perfect as possible but I think there's a point where something becomes too perfect to feel "good". A tiny bit more variation might go a long way there. Also, maybe I'm blind but the "anchors" of the giant piece of glass on the backwall seem to be too close to the border at the bottom but perfectly aligned at the top.
  11. Here is the scene. In image 1 the roof goes up then it stops. A Gravity object (setup as Force and Acceleration of 50 cm) comes into play and shoots down those debris in image 2. As you see, the debris (part of them) goes through that cube/plane (which also has dynamics activated). And I don't want that. Increasing the size increment under Dynamic>Collision (for either the plane/cube or the object fractured) doesn't seem to help. "preferences of the dynamic steps per frame" is set at 5 (default).
  12. It is difficult to visualise without a scene. Have you tried increasing the size increment under Dynamic>Collision? Also, inspect the preferences of the dynamic steps per frame.
  13. This is great information. I use Genesis figures in C4D as well for comics. I do all my sculpting and customization in Daz and Zbrush first then bring the figures in as FBX files. I then link the joints from the rigged figure into custom controllers using the Visual Selector in C4D. With regards to figure height and other structure changes that may alter the general shape of the base figure, try creating 3 or 4 standard body types for males and females in Daz then you'll have an easier time editing in C4D. I'm currently looking at creating a python script for connecting joints to the Visual Selector to take some of the tedium out of the transfer process.
  14. Thank you for clarifying. I have connected the character from head to heels by adding a neck, so that all of it is now one mesh. I know the mesh looks messy, I'm a newbie with 3D so can you please briefly clarify how this comment below is achievable? Based on my logic, the character mesh is messy but now it's one connected body, in the same way that cube or a sphere are one connected body for example, so this is why i'm asking to clarify. Attaching the difference after i read your post. Clearly some parts are starting to show correctly, while others, as you said are not. Thank you
  15. 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).
  16. 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
  17. 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.
  18. 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
  19. Yesterday
  20. 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.
  21. 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).
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. 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
  1. Load more activity

YOUTUBE CHANNEL:

ABOUT US:

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...