Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Today
  2. You're welcome. Yes it should be easier shouldn't it ? We've wanted an update to these tools for a long time, and I believe that UVs are very high on Maxon's priority list, so things will be improving in this area. CBR
  3. Yesterday
  4. Thanks again CBR. When people say C4D isn't the best for UV unwrapping they aren't wrong. Im no expert but wow it seems so complicated just to do what I would consider a basic shape. I think you're right though and will no doubt go back and just use the cubic function and just move the polys over from the left to sort this. The adding thickness thing is bizarre as i know ive done it before and its been fine so not sure why its been such a pain this time, may be it works better if I had modelled a cube and hypernurbed the corners rather than starting from a primitive object? Either way I think im just gonna have to fudge it together somehow and get it done. Thanks for you help again CBR Lang
  5. I think they changed that and there’s no more demo but only a trial. Unless it’s hidden or I have gone blind.
  6. For me demo works fine since it´s release (also updated to last version). It could be because I have also commercial version of R21? Don´t know, but works well for me
  7. One problem at a time, hey ? 1. We don't need to relax anything, because a cubic unwrap does it with zero distortion. But if we were going to do a relax anyway, we need to solve the problem you first posted about by disconnecting that edge or deleting that poly, after which the Relax UV error should go away. 2. However, if we don't relax, then you should be able to move that section to the other side and stitch the UVs on there, even though you don't have to stitch them because that's on a corner anyway - as long as they line up they don't actually have to be connected do they ? If that doesn't make sense to you, perhaps I am misunderstanding what you're trying to do... Unfortunately things get even more complicated when thickness is involved. You are right that negative extrusion produces an inversion of normals, but we have the tools to correct that. What we don't have tools to correct is the intersecting corners you risk getting when you add thickness, which are often very confusing to look at and quite time consuming to fix. And UVing that thickness is doubly confusing, so I find it most helpful to split the back side away and UV that separately (still within the same mesh though). CBR
  8. I dont use Corona however you need to build up the layers of hair with clumping, frizz, and thickness as the main things to start with. I like to use the curve in reverse for frizz so that the fizz is more at the roots. Thickness wise again the curve needs to start lower at the roots, go thicker, then goes off think toward the tips. Its not easy to create hair. Dan
  9. Thanks CBR. When I do that I then get the original error, relax uv error. Always the simplest things eh. My normals on this every time I add some thickness to the object seem to get throw a bit too. Plus they go from being the right way round to become reversed. I might have to start again on this as dont know why its become a pain. Ive in the past gone down the route of relaxing uv and its been fine until now. Cheers Lang
  10. Hi Dave, I need to apologise. I came here to offer my perspective as a enthusiast/learner of 3D that isn't as school anymore. So what I meant is for freelancers and Indies. I for one work with Resources in VFX. But I'm also a 3D enthusiast, playing with 3D since 2005 or so. So for me I would love to have a software to do 3D as a hobby for the cheapest possible option. Blender is alright and I support them, but I still feel like it's missing a few things in terms of workflow that Max and Cinema has. So for me, I can't classify for a student license, so my options would be Modo for £50/month the full version, the Modo Steam for like £10/month, Blender or Max/Maya for £250/year, which would be £20/month. In comparison, Cinema would cost £95/month and I would need an extra renderer and XParticles, which is +£30/month. The £55 version of Cinema IF that was a monthly payment and not a full year in advance, I would probably be able to add that. It might seen like I'm being cheap, but that is half the price. Make it a 1-year commitment, but in smaller instalments and with penalty for cancellation, similar to what Adobe does. So at the moment, Max/Maya is cheaper since you get Arnold GPU (just released) on the same £250 bundle. EDIT: To add to that ... the old no-save unlimited trial + 42 trial with save ability was a lot better than 14-day trial.
  11. How is 3DS Max cheaper? We have free licenses for students as well? Cheers Dave
  12. The easiest thing to do here is probably to just select your green highlighted polys, move them over to to the other side, then UV terrace the UV points back together... CBR
  13. This might work in the US or Europe, but lets say in Brazil this cost is already too much. I have a friend from Brazil, a Cinema 4D user for 11-years that has a online school and he's switching to Blender to be able to train more people. He's already has more than 100 students for the Blender courses. That could be potentially 100 new Cinema 4D users with the right license options and I'm very aware that there's an huge market of pirate licenses of Cinema 4D in Brazil, which is really unfortunate. I was hoping the 3D for the World would help smooth the entry barrier, but right now ... it's just easier and cheaper to get back into 3ds Max and learn Blender on the side.
  14. I had a tinker with Newton 3 recently. It's a Physics plugin for After Effects that can give AE shapes velocity, friction, bounce etc. Also has springs + levers, https://www.motionboutique.com/newton/ My first scene -
  15. If course I didn't, I only tried to tackle it The scene is here https://drive.google.com/open?id=1O-2MhTjwITGKQM2urJvOObrTyWuISgnG
  16. Challenge MAXON's business model? I would never think of such a thing! err...maybe not. While I did not pour through every post of this thread, I do think that a strong case can be made for both charging and not charging for an educational license - the key deciding factory being how long a "free" educational license remains active vs. a "reduced price" educational license. Imagine these options: I think right now everyone can get a free 14 day trial license. If you can prove your are a college student enrolled in a computer animation course then the following two things happen: This free license extends to a one-time only period of 3 months (or about the length of an average college course) If you want to use the license for an additional 3 months, the cost increases to $75 and each additional 3 month block costs the same $75. For each additional block, you need to revalidate that you are a) a college student and b) enrolled in a computer animation course. The logic is this: The first 3 month block covers the introductory course. This should be free. Get as many people to actually take a course in C4D. Should they want to take more advanced courses, then they are charged about the same as a standard text book - which I think is fair and not a undue burden on the student. I mean, are all text books free? No. So why should the software be free. There is nothing that says MAXON needs to give the software away to every college student but they should at least make it easy/cheap/free for them to step into and consider using the software (thus the first 3 month block is free). After that introduction, if they find that they have a real aptitude for the software and therefore desire to learn more, then they are more likely and willing to pay for it at that point. Now, while I am not sure if any college campuses offer full degreed mutli-year program in C4D, this is still a huge 50% discount over the annual subscription program with all the same benefits (Cineversity, updates, etc). I would infer from Rick Barrett's post that MAXON is looking into something like this with their license server
  17. Thanks so much for the time. I love your character rig by the way! Great possibilities with C4D, and that rig shows it off extremely well.
  18. Thanks for your help guys. @jed yeah it is a pretty sweet model.
  19. It's not the kind of animation that can be made into a loop. Although the head is driven by a sine node (itself a looping function), the rest of the body reacts dynamically. The start position is never repeated. +1 to Turbosquid for the nice free model.
  20. yeah the way the character object works it's not a good idea to manipulate multiple handles at once. what you are manipulating in adjust mode are handles, not necessarily joints (they can be joints though). under the hood all the rig elements are constrained to those handles, but not by constraint tags as we know them, the character object has built in constraints, where you can't specify as much as with the tag constraints. for instance there's no setting for priorities. but good to hear you figured it out on your own!
  21. bezo, Another great file! Thank you. Over the years I have accumulated a wonderful collection of your files. And Merry Christmas early!
  22. Hi again CBR This is what im trying to achieve with relaxing the uv. This shows what i get if i use the simple box projection along with the gaps between the UVs Cheers Lang
  23. Thanks CBR. I guess the only reason I sometimes go down the path of using relax uv is to try and mimic the actual cuts on the cutter guide. If I do a simple box projection is does unwrap it reasonably well as you've shown but for me it leaves a gap between the faces which would mean I would have to amend the uv anyway, unless im doing something wrong when using the projection command? It also puts the faces in a different way to the lay down I have. Attached is a screen shot showing that when use I box projection it doesn't keep the edges aligned and connected, is there a way ti get round that? Cheers Lang
  24. I do remain slightly confused as to why you are trying to relax the mesh during your UVings. This unwraps flawlessly with just a simple box projection and no relaxing needed... CBR
  25. You need to disconnect this edge from the back polygon (disconnect command). Note that disconnects all the points that touches, so you will have 2 welds to do afterwards to repair the back surface. Or you can delete the long thin poly... CBR
  26. I'm using the built-in biped rig. The advanced is extreme overkill and the animation is ALMOST simple enough to do it with FK entirely. The thing I believe that I've figured out is this. When I am building a rig, I go through the process as per the manual. I believe that my "error" occurs when I grab more than ONE joint and rotate them together. Fo some reason, it uses the object rotation instead of the world rotation....so the center-point axis of the parent nulls are being shifted away from the natural center....making the actual rotational point of the joints act like a fulcrum and lever instead of a cohesive unit. I managed to knock one rig out this morning...so if I can keep it going, I may actually finish this project before it's due...which is NUTS for us! Thanks so much!
  27. What YouTube policies were (allegedly) breached?
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...