Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 12/27/2019 in all areas

  1. 4 points
    Those that know have missed him while he's been away, but the good news is that the annual hiatus is over, and after a 4 month break Rocket Lasso is back later today ! For those that don't know Rocket Lasso is a 2 hour live video cast that happens on Wednesdays in which almighty C4D Overlord Chris Schmidt takes on your various VFX and Cinema problems and we all get to watch for a bit You can support him over on Patreon or via his website, and he'll be live later at 2 pm CST (8 pm GMT) over on Twitch or via his Youtube channel. So just a general heads up about that. If you haven't seen him before, the video below shows why he is excellent, and someone well worth watching if you are even vaguely into learning, pushing boundaries and generally having fun in Cinema. Here he is explaining the new Field Force Object in R21 more thoroughly than anyone else ! Happy watchings and thanks Chris for coming back for a second season ! CBR
  2. 3 points
    Here is an example with joints/bones as you suggested. I re-modeled a slice of the shape, rigged it and cloned the result. The subdivision generators are just there to create a bit of smoothing. But there are other ways of doing that (e.g. weighting on high res and using deformers with a restriction tag). The animation is on the joints and could probably use a bit of love to look more plausible. package_002.c4d
  3. 2 points
    There's the easy way, and then the easier way. I'm sure there's an easiest as well...
  4. 2 points
    I'm terribly sad to say that Cerbera is... WRONG!!! My latest Video on my Youtube channel has the solution. SUBSCRIBE!
  5. 2 points
    Hey! Cinema 4D fans! In this tutorial we will consider and learn how to create ivy without third-party plugins like Ivy Grower. But to do render i used Octane Render. Enjoy LINK: Cinema 4D Tutorial - IVY Without Plugin Ivy Grower
  6. 2 points
    Here is fast example. Random effector is just for different colors of clones. Profiles are just few splines with boole options... This way you could use any spline you want (sketch own or import)... scene file R21 Dodeca_03.zip
  7. 2 points
    Thank you very much bezo. This works just fine.
  8. 2 points
    Rough test render. I need to work on the edges. Render Time 1 min a frame at 1920 x 1080 on I7 3930K 6 Core/12 Threads . I was experimenting with render times so baked out a model. Thing is render mem usage suggests i could have a far higher detailed model but this is the limit of subdivs I could get inside the program. Perhaps I could adjust some prefs to get the RAM usage optimized..or is it a GPU thing ? I don't think so as the GPU has only 12 GB RAM and this model is far more than that. Quality is bad embedded watch on YouTube !! Why model it ? Well the processing time for high detail sub ploy displacement is the issue without a render farm.
  9. 2 points
    My film the Raven was selected for the Sunrise film festival in Nova Scotia! I have no illusions that it will win anything but being shown is a big deal for me.
  10. 2 points
    Reuleaux triangles are weird https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuleaux_triangle well, it amused me reuleaux2.c4d
  11. 2 points
    That, my friend, is a pole, specifically a complex pole which means that a single point has more than 5 edges converging on it; in this case many more ! Why do our primitives make / use them ? Because they most accurately give a properly spherical shape, and a lot of the spherically derived forms people try and make require that polar layout where the edge flow makes sense for their models - think eyeball for a good example of this.. The Hexasphere, which doesn't have a poles problem, being as it is a rounded cube essentially, might be much superior from a topological point of view in that it has no poles, but actually it isn't as perfectly round as either a standard sphere or an icosa sphere ! That is why we need both options. CBR
  12. 2 points
    @bentraje may be able to offer some help in this area as I know he went over to Maya to do rigging. Dan
  13. 2 points
    Great plugin, a timesaver, using it constantly!!!!
  14. 1 point
    thanks for the information!
  15. 1 point
    Hi, This at 03,00-03.17: https://vimeo.com/218347247
  16. 1 point
    Connect object....off course I had tried bevel without it Thanx a lot!
  17. 1 point
    I don't have Redshift but to me it looks like you're completely blending the material into nothing which would explain the change in refraction. EDIT: Unless of course you've layered the glass below the droplet layer in a different way that I can't see in the image. In that case, nevermind.
  18. 1 point
    Also take a look at 3D-Coat for UV tasks. Dane
  19. 1 point
    I don't think you can really game when rendering. It's GPU rendering yes, but for ever frame preparation and other stuff the CPU is still in use. Just render a still that takes a while or an animation and look at the CPU / Memory usage. You'll see what I mean. I might be wrong though, I only have a single 1070 and I always render when I go to bed or leave the house.
  20. 1 point
    Do you use AE? Some update of AE revert latest c4d update to base version, more here: https://forums.cgsociety.org/t/updates-are-gone-solved-adobe-ae-update-reset-c4d-to-21-022/2056048
  21. 1 point
  22. 1 point
    i will remember this! i couldn't reply to another one of your answers (MODIFY ANCHOR POINT OF A JOINT). i noticed that my mixamo rig hips is off center and it was driving me nuts. your solution and steps did the trick and got me unstuck, so thank you!
  23. 1 point
    Thanks for the responses! Here is a file for you to look at. @Noseman, I tried your approach and it helped but the kink remained, just moved closer to the end so I feel like I'm still missing something. I also found a cheat by reducing the end growth to 99%. That seems to do the trick but just curious if that's the best solution. Thanks again! Helix_Sweep_Issue.c4d
  24. 1 point
    You're welcome Happy splinings ! CBR
  25. 1 point
    Unfortunately this is a known issue, and although there's a way to make the problem less visible, you may not be able to totally eliminate it. Make a cut to isolate the part of the road that clips under the Camera View, and then go and subdivide that polygon a few several times. THEN go and Generate the UVW Coordinates. Another method, which will work for the original geometry but won't help you if you're going to fracture it, is to make a Copy of the Solved Camera on frame 0, remove all keyframes and use that one as the projecting camera. You may need to crop the final render to remove any gaps in both methods. Here's the Road Polygon Object with "correct" UVs. Just copy and paste it to your document and apply the material using UVW https://www.dropbox.com/s/lubkzxki7k2i0hx/Road.c4d?dl=0 Cheers Noseman
  26. 1 point
    Have fun guys. So glad I don't have to do this behind the scenes work anymore
  27. 1 point
    Awesome, thanks for Sharing Igor. As I grew up watching these actors in their younger years I can relate to how well they did. There is still room for improvement as I could pick something up in the eyes that didn't quite fit, a slight nuance, but hasn't new tech done some amazing things. Dan
  28. 1 point
    Your SSD manufacturer may have a migration app that will transfer your operating system from the old drive to a new one. Samsung have such an app. Saves on reinstalling stuff.
  29. 1 point
    Inspirational, very artistic, I'll give up now
  30. 1 point
    CV-AR gives you the vertex movement of the face and it also gives you the blend shape values from ARKit that you can use to drive your own Pose Morphs to control your own model of a face. If you want to have a face talking on your own mesh then you would need to create the blend shapes yourself (using FACS is good) and then drive them using the blend shape parameters from the CV-AR. The Xpresso setup that CV-AR gives you is a good starting point to see how this can be done, but you don't have to use it if you don't want to. You could also drive a rigged model using the blend shape values as well, but that would need a different xpresso setup. Hope that helps.
  31. 1 point
    I've put this in the Octane Category for now, which is certainly better than where it was - Introductions, where it definitely shouldn't be ! But your question doesn't actually relate to specifically Octane, as displacement works very similarly in all renderers, so I might move it to Texturing and UVs later if it transpires that the advice you're getting is generally applicable. Displacement is driven by a grayscale map usually, though that may be generated by a procedural noise if you use the displacement inside native Cinema. Where you are using procedural noise, then the principal factor involved in that is randomness, so you don't so much control where the displacement happens, as keep flicking through random noise seeds until you find one you like ! But if you need specific control over where the displacement occurs, then you need to UV unwrap the object and then prepare a displacement map that fits the UVs you have created. You can either create a UV mesh layer then design this map in Photoshop, or Octane my have ways of baking its own noises into material maps. CBR
  32. 1 point
    Yeah, it sort of works That pole in the middle of the disc is affecting things in a negative way, but I like what you tried to do with spherize. TBH in your file what you were trying to do was radically different from what I was imagining you were asking, so as long as you're happy, hey ? CBR
  33. 1 point
    That looks really good. would you please also send the file? yea I was using a different version about a year ago and I was inactive till now that I felt I should get back to C4D. I will update it. Thanks much for the helps
  34. 1 point
    Oh I see you are using Delaunay caps, which means your profile version is wrong - please update that to minimise confusion. The reason your fur looks like it has gaps in it is not primarily down to the amount of hairs or the distribution of polygons in the object. You have a range of other factors contributing to this. For example look at this full and furry effect I am able to get on your letter just by changing a few things about the file... Things I changed were: 1. Added (even) more points into splines, and turned on regular grid in Extrude. 2. Swapped Fur for Hair 3. Adjusted guide length up to 3 cm. The shorter the hairs the more gaps you will have to work harder to cover. 4. Changed hair thickness to 0.1 /0.01. Now it looks like fur again. 5. Added 10% general frizz which goes a long way to covering any gaps. This, and curl and clump all help making hair be less straight and gappy. 6. Activated the Length Parameter in the hair material, and allowed 20% variation there to disrupt the previous too perfect fur outline - nothing in nature has equal length fur ! 7. Decreased render hairs to just 500,000 - that is all we need now. 8. Lost the Physical Sky, and replaced with 2 omni lights with soft shadows, which is the sort of lighting that makes hair look best. 9. Changed aliasing to best 1 x 1 / 4 x 4. CBR
  35. 1 point
    it's been a while since i used the advanced biped, but i know that priority issue wasn't there when i used it. just tried it with r19 and r20 to be sure, and it works just fine in those versions.
  36. 1 point
    And the day has been saved by @Cerbera Thanks Will have a play !
  37. 1 point
    Thanks so much, cerbera! Your erudition and counsel here on the Cafe is a godsend. Where can I obtain a Hexasphere, just for visual comparison?
  38. 1 point
    CBR, thanks so much, thats totally sorted it out, and (I think) helped me understand the logic behind the issue. I did actually consider subdividing the polly, but usually we are all about using as few pollys as necessary, particularly in this instance as the actual thing is going to be cloned allot... I've also noted your second example of re-setting the UV correctly, but this isn't actually what I want in this case. I'm using Xpresso to deform the cloned polys and want the texture to be streached as they deform, but thanks for explaining why thats 'wrong' and why cinema is struggling to understand what I want. Thanks!
  39. 1 point
    Fwiw, you dont have to do the disabling step. Just click set bind pose and youll see it jump and be good to go. you can check for the issue by toggling the checkmark though. If it moves then theres an offset from the bind pose typically if youve bound them go back and readjust this will happen. Any adjustments made after binding would require you to reset the bind pose of the weight tag.
  40. 1 point
    These are the content libraries which give you the predefined ready-to-use objects, scenes, and materials. There is no "best" one as they all contain different things. You download all of them, naturally.
  41. 1 point
    ah! ok, i will check out the link. i had no idea i posted in introductions. thanks
  42. 1 point
    You realy have to understand how this works in reality. The weight of the object is one factor, others are the length of each rope and it's tension. In reality not all ropes will have the same tension so some will be taught and straight while others will show slack. Your image on the left shows what it would look like to hang a heavy object from rubber bands, the right one shows a light object on steel cables, except for the lower left rope which defies gravity.
  43. 1 point
    I suspect E-on are going to have to work quite hard to repair their reputation with Cinema users, comprehensively shattered after years and years of crash-happy PoS Vue software, no updates and ignoring support emails drove us all up the wall, and a lot of us to uninstall it altogether ! I have read a fair few threads here over the years expressing peoples' frustration with them. That and their OTT pricing provided little in the way of incentive to persevere with them. It's a shame, because at one point it had a lot of potential before things like Terragen and World-creator came along, and made Vue look rather antiquated and inferior. I don't know that they can ever win me back - the other things seem more reasonably priced for what you get and still rather better IMO - compare the demo images on Eons site versus either of the 2 I have previously mentioned - Vue doesn't come out of that comparison well, and they now only do subscription, which costs more than Cinema per month, which nearly everyone will hate, and seems ridiculously overpriced to me... But, in the interests of fairness, those other 2 aren't without their own problems - TG has an initial learning curve that is a bit like a vertical wall, and WC, whilst a joy to use, with its extra shiny GUI and a fairly gentle slope into its sensible intuitive workflow, needs a pretty high end graphics card to work fast enough, has some reliability issues of its own, and you couldn't exactly call its plant library extensive. But it is £300, perma-license, which is a lot of bang for buck, and its terrains are properly breathtaking and real-time, which is an amazing thing to see... can you tell ? - this one wins that battle for me All offer demos, so best bet is to try them all and see what you like best for the price... CBR
  44. 1 point
    (Full) Maya's animation toolset is fairly well accepted to be the best there is in that it is the most capable, and well-featured (and has been around the longest so is industry standard), but I'll bet my bottom dollar that Cinema's equivalent systems are easier to learn and use and arguably faster to set up, if they are not quite as comprehensive. I also think Cinema rigs look better, but that's personal opinion and extends to the rest of the program as well - but I have never been that keen on the way Maya looks and feels. Our FBX import is pretty decent too by version R18+ but I suggest you test the rigging aspects of that yourself using your own Maya rigs in the demo of Cinema before you decide... CBR
  45. 1 point
    I have used Crazybump in the past (and I particularly like the way it refers to us as puny humans ), and it is nice to use, and relatively straightforward, but for some reason I feel a lot more in control of my textures if I am making them manually. CBR
  46. 1 point
    Righty - let's get this done... 1. In the same scene as your mannequin, get a sphere, with these settings (primitive menu). I am using a random human mesh instead of the mannequin. We need to get a cloner now, make the sphere a child of it in the Object Manager, and set it up like so... In the Object Field above (which will only appear when you change the cloner to Object Mode), drag the mannequin from the Object Manager into it. This will place tiny spheres on every point of your model, and you can now adjust their size in the sphere attributes until they look right. Now you can hide the mannequin mesh from viewport and render with the 'traffic lights', the 2 dots to the right of that object, like so... . Now you should only see the spheres in VP and render. Lastly we need to texture the spheres so they glow white. Add a new material to the Material Manager, apply it to the sphere (drag material swatch to it) and then give it these settings. First, double click the material, and in the Basic tab of the window that appears, enable Luminance and Glow, and turn all other channels off. This makes those tabs appear in the Material editor too. In the Luminance tab, make sure the colour is white, and brightness is 100%. Leave everything else at default. In the glow channel, use these settings or similar... Lastly, tweak all these settings until you get more what you want, then pop to Render Settings, check it is using Standard, and in the Aliasing tab, set that to Best. Now you can render your animation, which if all has gone well, should look something like this.... As I said before, the glows in Cinema aren't great, so if you'd rather do those in AFX, then just leave the glow channel off in Cinema. I am not an AFX expert, so not the best person to explain how to glow stuff there, but again, a search for After FX glow on Youtube should find you tutorials. Hope that helps... CBR
  47. 1 point
  48. 1 point
    It is this time of year again... Time for some presents! I am giving away 30 models I created in the past few months. All of them are laser-cut models based on CAD files. You can download the set of models here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/g3dv0avrq5q5dgu/Laser Cut Objects Christmas 2019.7z?dl=0 Enjoy, and Merry Christmas! Cheers contrafibbularities
  49. 1 point
    I hate to say it, but if C4D becomes part of Adobe's Creative Cloud that is actually a better deal than what MAXON is giving us today. Creative Cloud has more software options, cheaper price, true monthly billing plus cloud storage. It is truly a sad day when you start to prefer Adobe over MAXON. What has become of this world? Dave
  50. 1 point
    me too. I made my decision, I did not renew MSA and won't pay subscription so I am out. edit: an ignominious ending or beginning to a once leading 3D software.

Latest Topics

Latest Comments

×
×
  • Create New...