Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 05/22/2020 in all areas

  1. 4 points
    Hi all, Some of you may know the aaOcean plugin - for ocean / sea surface creation. It's been available for a while, but broke with the R21 update. I'm pleased to say that, due to the voluntary work of Kent Barber, it's been updated for R21 / S22 on both Windows and MacOS. I've also expanded the minimal documentation that was available. Sorry for the slightly convoluted links - but if you visit: http://vantagegraphics.co.uk/aaocean you'll find links to the plugin itself - and for the updated documentation file. Hope you enjoy it.
  2. 2 points
    I think it's pretty easy to do this yourself without any plug-ins, although you get a pattern different from the one Cerbera showed. I use a technique that works when the number of Rotation Segments of the cylinder is a power of 2 (i.e., 8, 16, 64, 128, etc...): 1) Create a cylinder making sure that the number of Rotation segments is a power of 2 and Caps turned on with 1 segment. Convert it to an editable object and Optimize if you have an old C4D version to make sure that the caps are attached to the rest of the cylinder (!). For a 16 segment cylinder, you now have something that looks like this from the top, which by now you are quite used to seeing (I selected all of the points in point mode for better visibility): 2) Now, we want to get rid of all but four of the radial edges but keep that central point, as illustrated in the following image: The quick way I go about doing this, which is especially helpful for cylinders with very many Rotation Segments is to go into Edges Mode and simply use Live Selection with a reasonably sized brush to select all of the edges stemming from the center, by clicking on the point at the center of the cap. You can also just select any radial edge and do a ring select (U~B) on any other radial edge, to select them all, if this way is easier for you. Then, I just Ctrl-Click the four segments, in Live Select, that form the cross shape I don't want selected (the edges going in the up, down, left, and right directions from the center) which are always constant in number (i.e., exactly four). Finally, the the edges that remain highlighted (as shown in the above image) should now be dissolved (i.e., M~N, Ctrl-BS/Del, Right-Click menu, or however you like to do dissolves). 2b) OK, if your cylinder only had 8 Rotation Segments, you're done (congrats!) and you can skip the rest of the steps. 3) For cylinders with Power-of-two Rotational Segment counts >=16, we're left with a cap Full-O-NGons at this point, as indicated by the reddish NGon lines in the image below. I've gone ahead and selected the central point in Point Mode for the following step which does most of the remaining work of creating the quad topology: 4) In Points Mode, with the central point (and only the central point!) selected we want to do a Bevel operation (M~S) with the settings shown below: Tool Option Offset Mode: Proportional Offset: 100 % Subdivision: 3 {See Note} Note: Type a value that is the following function of N, the number of Rotation Segments you started with: Subdivision=N/4-1. Since I used 16 segments for this example, 16/4-1=3 for the Subdivision count. (For 32 starting segments, it would be 7, for 64, 15, and for 128, 31) - just divide the starting number by four and subtract one. Depth: -100 % Limit: Unchecked (but doesn't matter, int his case) Shaping Shape: Round Tension: 100% Topology You can leave all of the Topology options unchecked... 5) We now have the following almost complete topology and I've gone ahead and once again selected all of the points to improve their visibility in the demo image below: 6) Unfortunately, NGon lines remain. This is because the Bevel tool slightly "missed" the existing points by a tiny offset, so we are left with doubled points along the cap's circumference that are very close to the points they should be right on top of. It is important to note for the next step that the bad, misaligned points, are the ones that have at least one edge stemming from them and going into the cap and connecting with another point in the interior of the cap. The good original points, are the ones along the circumference of the cap with both edges coming off of them forming said circumference. 7) To fix things up, you can go one of several ways here. These include the fast, easy, but not very accurate optimize operation to help merge all of the duplicate points, all the way to welding each pair of points by hand using the Weld Tool, Stich-n-sew, the Polygon Pen tool, or whatever floats your boat. Personally, I prefer the "by-hand" methods for smaller numbers of rotational segments in order to make sure that the Bevel created points get repositioned and merged to the correctly positioned pre-existing points. For larger Rotation Segment counts, Optimize is you more prudent and pragmatic pal. Going the Optimize route will tend to merge points at the midpoint between the original, correctly positioned circumference points and their Bevel Tool created pairings. This will slightly shift the original points in the process. On the positive side, the result of this is that the NGons will be gone in a single broad stroke, but the points in the top cap may not line up perfectly with the points in the bottom cap, which may or may not be OK, depending on how this object is used/modeled going forward. I will describe more specifically my welding approach when precise point positioning is desired, which is often the case for low Rotational Segment counts and/or scenes that require very accurate placement. I start by switching to Polygons Mode, select all of the polygons in the cap being worked on and then do a "Hide Unselected" command to hide all other polygon geometry of the cylinder and to in effect solo just the polygons of the cap whose points I will be manually optimizing. Then, in Points Mode, I weld all of the misplaced duplicate points using the Polygon Pen tool (don't forget to check Auto Weld from the Poly Pen options in the Attributes Manager!) to their properly positioned points along the cap's circumference. As previously mentioned, the misplaced points are the ones with edges going into the cap, either towards the center or towards a point int the cap's interior. It would be a good idea to zoom in for precision. Whichever of the above methods you choose for cleanup, the result is a relatively nice Quad based cap topology, as shown in the image below: I will now include additional images that demonstrate the resulting topology for 32 and 64 Rotational segments, just to give you an idea of what you will get: 32: 64: It is important to bear in mind that the above images represent flat cap surfaces (and not spherical ones). If there are any negatives to this topological quad-based layout it is the fact that the resulting quads tend to get slightly larger towards the center and smaller towards the original points that made up the initial "cross shaped" edges (i.e., the quads get progressively smaller towards the top, right, bottom, and left edges along the circumference of the cap). You can resize from the center with soft selection turned on to equalize things a bit, but I won't go into that here, since it is a process that would require an article of its own. I hope the above steps help you out, at least until MAXON adds some quality Quad Cap options to cylinders.
  3. 2 points
    Hi. Here is one way to do it. 1: Make plane primitive then place it to top of bottle cap. 2-3-4: Select and Extrude the edges twice down to fit close to bottle. 5: Use Loop Path Cut to add polygons for even distribution (square polygons. 6: Make a selection set at ends to use with shrink wrap. 7: Add shrink Wrap deformer and drag n drop selection set into falloff. This will only then effect polygon selection area. 8: Add cloth surface tag (if you cant find it press shift + c to bring up command and type in cloth) Add thickness and turn on bulge if required. bottle with safety lid tab.c4d
  4. 2 points
    One of the tasks that is deceptively harder than it looks is determining the pattern of the spikes on the sphere itself. If you notice, they form a repeating pentagram (5 sides) around the surface. You can't use a normal sphere's polygons to guide you because all sphere primitives follow either a 4 or 6 sided polygonal pattern. One thing to consider is to use a platonic dodecahedron placed within the sphere (turn X-ray on) as a guide on where to place your spikes. Just a thought. Dave
  5. 2 points
    Not surprised you are struggling - this looks like quite a simple modelling proposition, but actually isn't. In fact to model this as a single mesh would require a relatively wide range and knowledge of assorted modelling techniques, but as the spikes are separate objects in the real world, that is how we should model them as well, which certainly makes things easier. So, with that said there are 2 main parts to this - modelling the hatch in the main shell, which you should do based on one of the polar sections of a standard sphere. And the spikes, which you can clone on to the surface of a helper sphere object if you can find one with the right distribution of points, and then adjust the Z position of those to better match your mine. As for how to achieve the curvature on the bases, that is best done right at the start of their creation (which should begin with a disc object) using subdivision and deformers, either double bend objects at 90 degree offsets from each other, or maybe an FFD or even something like the wrap deformer with suitable settings... or you could even project your disc onto the sphere. CBR
  6. 2 points
    Hello all, I had a plugin to create studio backdrops that ceased to work, so I made my own. You can get it for free here : https://www.dropbox.com/s/m12a5u23b6x67l0/BazStudioScenes.c4d?dl=0 Might not be perfect but it works, enjoy !
  7. 2 points
    Yea to be honest I wouldn't use either of the techniques you provided examples of above flat surface or not, mainly because they're ugly:) one would prefer a nice quad patch like the example @Cerbera provided:D
  8. 1 point
    Moved to correct section. Can you: a) ctrl click to remove it ? b) ctrl double click to remove it ? c) right click it, and choose remove ? If none of that works try a restart and see if it persists. If it still remains after that you will need to upload the scene file so we can take a proper look. CBR
  9. 1 point
    Meh. So I sat down and wrote a few quick scripts for material management. The first one is here, have it for free: import c4d from c4d import gui def main(): name = "" search = c4d.gui.RenameDialog(name) if search == None: return search = search.lower() mat = doc.GetFirstMaterial() while mat != None: if search in mat.GetName().lower(): print "Found!" doc.SetActiveMaterial(mat) doc.GetActiveMaterial() # Should be called afterward to update the internal selection state. c4d.CallCommand(16297) # Find first active material c4d.EventAdd() return mat = mat.GetNext() if __name__=='__main__': main() This one shows a dialog to enter a (partial) name string. The script will then select the first material whose name contains the string (case-insensitive) and scrolls to that material in the material manager. (Also attached as file as we know that copy&paste sometimes works weirdly.) The other three are for my Patrons on Patreon here: https://www.patreon.com/posts/script-club-1-13-37630995 They contain one script to select all materials fitting the search string, one script to filter all materials fitting the search string (making all others invisible), and one script that makes all materials visible again. I have given them just a quick test, so if there is any trouble, notify me. Material_Search_ByName.py
  10. 1 point
    Do you watch Rocket Lasso at all ? Because i am fairly sure I remember him covering something like this - if not exactly the same, it was closely related, and would probably be of maximum help if you could find it. Of course I have no idea what episode it was in, so maybe someone with a better memory than me will be able to chime in and narrow down your search... All I do remember about the tut itself was that it used softbodies to get perfect intersection-free results. CBR
  11. 1 point
    Planning a nebula scene and messing around with options. This of course is not what I am after but I may as well put it up as it is quite pleasing and shows potential
  12. 1 point
    I don't know what your initial problem was ! But it is possible to model everything without ngons, and it would be possible to cut this mesh all the way through despite them using Plane cut or Line cut, which are both tools that that are designed to accommodate ngon editing.. CBR
  13. 1 point
    It is worth remembering that a lot of the poly modelling tools work predictably when working with legal topology. Allowing ngons in your meshes, which is generally speaking bad practice anyway, adds a degree of unpredictability to poly tools, and in some cases prevents them working... CBR
  14. 1 point
    The loop cut has a few options. Have you tried disabling some of them? Sometimes the cut will not continue if it comes across an N-gon or pole.
  15. 1 point
    maybe inverted normals, breaked phong shading or disconnected polygons...
  16. 1 point
    that's great. I never thought about CMYK vs RGB as being a cause!!! You've been super heplful!
  17. 1 point
    wow. Not sure how i didn't notice. Thanks for sorting that. Your help has been extremely appreciated. Shawn
  18. 1 point
    The strength field is not limited. You will get the same trouble if you switch the widget in the Attribute Manager to Float Slider. You can get around that by defining a User Data float slider with sensible limits (e.g. -100 ... 100), use Set Driver / Set Driven to create an XPresso connection, and drag that field to the HUD. AFAIK you cannot change the limits of a built-in slider directly. (You CAN but only if you manipulate the GUI definition files... rather don't.)
  19. 1 point
    Hi Cerbera, Wow thanks for all your detailed advice! I'll be sure to research the topics you have mentioned, especially edge flow as I often find myself stuck when modelling with no choices left but to resolve mesh issues by adding triangles. I read that having a good edge flow on a model will prevent you from having to do this so perhaps I will practice this technique on a simpler model just so I get the hang of it. Also interesting about the disc primitives and FFD deformer which is a new way to approach this that I hadn't thought of. And totally agree with you on doing a model second time round. I find myself remodelling things over and over as I sort of feel the model isn't quite right and am always surprised at how much better the results are each time just by approaching it with a different method. Thanks again for your tips on this!
  20. 1 point
    My instinct is no, but I am not 100% on that. We should wait to see what everyone else says. CBR
  21. 1 point
    I started making some mini vfx shots with my daughter for fun. This is my first attempt at vfx integrated with live action. Let me know your thoughts. The 3d assets were created and animated in Cinema4d, and rendered with Octane! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMOMhUummYc Make sure to subscribe for more fun videos weekly
  22. 1 point
    Hey guys what's up, been out for quite a while, thought i'd ease back in by revamping an old model from a few years back, very early stages just playing with materials and lighting, some remodelling has been done already and i'd imagine more will come. I'll also include a shot of the old one for comparison (click for a close up :D)
  23. 1 point
    haha ye my friend told me it totally freaked her out
  24. 1 point
    I can give you the brief strategy / overview, but unfortunately do not have time to explain in great detail at the moment. Th best result will be achieved via regular SDS poly modelling, starting with Lathe with the same amount of radial segments as there are ridges in your bottle, then making it almost immediately editable, and manually extruding the ridges from there... this way they will follow the curves of your topology when used with Subdivision. CBR
  25. 1 point
    Vray and the standard C4D renderer are not compatible. If you try to render Vray materials on a model using the standard renderer, it will often show up as orange. If you don't want to use Vray, you will have to go through the model and replace all of the Vray materials with the standard materials. The reason why the render looks washed out is because there are no lights in the scene. Whoever put that file together did not include the lighting setup that it shown in the renders (the sunlight). If you go into the Vray settings, in the environment tab, you'll notice that it is set to a light blue color (see attached image). This means that a light shade of blue will be applied globally. That is the only light being emitted in the scene. This is why your image is washed out. Normally the environment is set to black. If you want to render a sunset type image, you'll need to add a Physical Sun + Sky object and make the proper adjustments to it.
  26. 1 point
    I used hinge connectors here with angle limits for bounce. Opens with custom angular velocity, but you could use a collider object in the box keyframed upwards. You can add damping in the force tab on the dynamic tag. box.c4d with object box2.c4d
  27. 1 point
    I see! That's really interesting. Thanks so much!
  28. 1 point
    Thank you! Hope to see some new work from you soon too.
  29. 1 point
    I wanted to do something original and something different for our gender reveal, so last year I 3D modeled and animated a animation that we watched in a movie theater. I created two versions with a boy and girl version so I also did not know the ending until the day of. It was created in Cinema4d and rendered with Octane. Let me know what you guys think! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdQRAusxtkw I also started creating some fun mini VFX shots https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCd4OQ7QVz_53yLT5y6t9RNQ
  30. 1 point
    Look for the script log in the Extensions menu; all your actions are recorded there. You just need to clean up a little, like removing the call for the script log which is also logged
  31. 1 point
    You need to keep your quads even on the low poly surface. Your current low poly mesh contains too many large quads, which may cause problems when subdividing.
  32. 1 point
    Do you have an example of the problem, and what you want to achieve? Not sure I understood
  33. 1 point
    Thank you for your answer, I followed your advice and contacted one of the administrators of the server. Now I just have to wait for his response. I thought about that before and deleted the cache of the browser and also followed your advice with the incognito mode but unfortunately it didn't work. Anyhow thank you for your advice!
  34. 1 point
    That's hardly a valid comparison. With a leased car, you may no longer be able to drive if you don't pay, but you don't lose all your already-driven distances. And if you change to a different car, you don't have to get a new driver's license.
  35. 1 point
    Hello and welcome to the cafe. 3D covers a wide range of skills, what area are your interests in? Dan
  36. 1 point
    BRILLIANT! I would have never thought about starting with a disc! Thanks, I'm working through it now and hopefully by the time you're back on I have some progress made. I can't thank you enough.
  37. 1 point
    Please complete your profile to at minimum show which version of Cinema you are using. We can't really help unless we have that information. CBR
  38. 1 point
    Funnily enough I am also on a client job at the moment in which I am forced to use Boolean Operations, but unlike you, I can't go back for better STEP reference I am getting things to work with a rather assorted variety of tricks and bedevilment, some of which seem to have no reason behind them whatsoever, yet *touch wood*, I do find myself winning most of the boolean battles I face. In short my top boole tips are: Do anything you can to avoid using them at all. But if it is unavoidable... Aim for a solid boole first, so you get the inside of say carved lettering, but if that is not possible, for example if one of your source meshes is open, then still do the boole, but you will only get an intersection, and have to model indents yourself from that outline, which is still helpful. Make sure the mesh you are cutting into has regular, even distribution of polygons and enough density. Always break the phong shading along intersection lines If things go invisible... Move the source geo slightly. Move the other mesh slightly. Change the interpolation in any spline based geo to uniform / natural, and vary subsegment numbers Have all the options in the boole object ticked to start with... If that fails, turn off HQ, but then set and use proper phong edge breaks. Better to turn HQ back on, and instead change the topology of the source meshes until it doesn't fail any more. This can be as easy as sliding 1 vertex or as complex as re-topologising an entire section, but if you are patient you WILL find something that works... Spin edges to avoid counter-flow junctions and complex poles. But not if it's animated booleans. That sh1t is just not predictable or reliable and there's really not much we can do other than find another way CBR
  39. 1 point
    05.21 More product shot practice.
  40. 1 point
    First of all the top of this cylinder is flat - fully planar, so it doesn't matter if there are triangles or complex poles, even under subdivision. There is no functional difference between the 2 quad options you have shown - they are all kite quads at the centre, and either is an equally acceptable solution for quads on a planar surface. However, both of these ways are rubbish under subdivision on a curved surface - in that case neither will do because you can't be having the complex pole that remains at the very centre, which will result in artefacting during render. In that case then this is the answer for quad solving - it can cope with curving in any direction, and has not a single complex pole anywhere ... CBR
  41. 1 point
    that meme made me spit out my beer
  42. 1 point
    Please read our guide to how to post on the cafe, after which we can avoid you posting in the wrong place with the sort of post title we really don't want, and not including the information we need to be able to help. You will also need to fix your profile so that it tell us which version you are using, which is not Beta, unless you are on the MAXON Beta testing team, which we can tell you are not by the type of question you are asking. CBR
  43. 1 point
    Without a scene file or more information we have no idea what you're doing wrong. Consider attaching a (simplified) scene and someone will probably look at it
  44. 1 point
    The final product. I did do a little more detailing.
  45. 1 point
    Hey man, hope you're well… Yeah, they opened in R21 so I resaved them and they opened in S22… I think this was an X Particles thing, I was using an older XP build … I've updated my XP so hopefully it won't happen again.
  46. 1 point
  47. 1 point
    If you didn't want AO applying to everything in the scene, and instead were applying to specific objects via a material. CBR
  48. 1 point
  49. 1 point
    This post I made in the NAB2020 thread would probably be appropriate here. In short, updating a core is NOT a trivial exercise and poses great risk. The fact that MAXON was able to successfully navigate those waters, still produce yearly releases with new features and STILL BE STABLE deserves recognition. But...with that said....there have been releases along this journey that were not worth the money that Studio MSA holders were paying - if only because we paid a higher premium when the majority of the new features benefited even Prime license holders. As for me, I had faith that MAXON would ultimately "deliver the goods" and I think those days are finally upon us. The goods are coming. But what is NOT happening is any recognition of the loyalty of those users, especially the Studio users, who stuck with MAXON through this journey and dutifully paid their higher MSA subscriptions for lackluster releases. Now, when R20 was released and they raised the Studio MSA prices from $620 to $750, I was not that upset because I finally felt that the "goods were coming" and MAXON should be rewarded. But then R21 came out and quite frankly it was a gut punch. Some new tools but not many to warrant a full point release and with it the pressure to move to subscriptions with a subtle threat that perpetual licensing would cost $900+. Non Studio users now get what Studio users have been paying a premium for all those years. Look, this is an old complaint but still just as painful. We stuck with MAXON all those years, supporting them during a very risky time for the company as they rewrote the core. This could easily have gone sideways for MAXON and permanently damaged the company (just look at Lightwave and e-on), its ability to complete the rewrite and their reputation. But now that they have successfully reached the end, we are faced with higher perpetual licensing costs, a subscription model that the majority finds distasteful, and no recognition that R21 MSA holders should (by contract) be entitled to S22. So again, I love the developers, I love the quality team, the UI designers, all the technical teams. My gripe is not with them. I am just disappointed that the business team places no value on user loyalty over the years and how we helped them get to where MAXON is today. Dave
  50. 1 point
    Hi everyone, I have been developing some new tools to create UDIMs, move UVs from one UDIM/Material to another, and transfer texture from your existing material across to the new UDIMs. Just wondering how many of you out there are actually importing and using UDIMS currently in your workflows, from Mari or Substance etc... and if you would be interested in seeing me continue working on these types of solutions for you. Cheers, Kent
  • Create New...