Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 03/21/2019 in all areas

  1. 1 point
    I think this does it def main(): top = doc.SearchObject('boxes') boxes = top.GetChildren() count = len(boxes) boxes[0][c4d.ID_BASEOBJECT_GLOBAL_POSITION,c4d.VECTOR_X] = 0 for a in range(1, count): prev_pos = boxes[a-1][c4d.ID_BASEOBJECT_GLOBAL_POSITION,c4d.VECTOR_X] prev_rad = boxes[a-1].GetRad().x curr_rad = boxes[a].GetRad().x boxes[a][c4d.ID_BASEOBJECT_GLOBAL_POSITION,c4d.VECTOR_X] = prev_pos + prev_rad + 1 + curr_rad the boxes are under a parent called boxes, and in the for loop current position = previous position + prev radius + 1 + current radius result along X in this file, copy some boxes into the parent 'boxes' in OM box_arrange.c4d edit - same in XPresso. Select one obj and change width with scale tool to test. box_arrange_xp2.c4d AFAIK bounding box in XP doesn't use primitives only poly, but the GetRad() python method can do both.
  2. 1 point
    Sounds good. For #1 I just means, inside of photoshop you can't get a white paint brush and start making up highlights where there are none or remove things that were not able to be solved while inside of the 3D environment (clone stamping things out). It won't be an issue if you want to render out in passes and elect to strengthen or reduce your reflection pass for example. I'll be in touch. I plan to make this public next week. This should be fun to see what everyone comes up with.
  3. 1 point
    Haven't touched Octane in a while, but last I tried it couldn't stand up to RedShift in getting rid of noise. I don't agree. That's like saying we don't need cinematographers to choose lighting set-ups for real sets because there are already some fluorescent fixtures in the ceiling! Just because new tools are making it easier to get realistic lighting results doesn't mean that it doesn't take an artist to tell the computer what to do.
  4. 1 point
    I feel it's 100% artist driven. I work at a production studio. We start with a dark studio and it takes someone to first and foremost, have a vision, and then select lights, move them into place, set up modifiers, set up flags and scrims, etc. This all happens in real-time without any rendering. Most commercial photographers I know (and I work with amazing ones), still work incredibly hard and struggle at times to get the exact lighting they are envisioning and dealing with getting rid of hot spots, reflections, and shadows that are working counter to their vision. If you're able to light anything you want anyway you want, you should be a Hollywood DP making a million a movie (live action or animated films). In my opinion the render engine is just calculating the physics of the light. It's like a golf club. You can get better ones or faster ones for sure. But you need to be Tiger Woods using it, to consistently deliver beautiful results.
  5. 1 point
    When you have the right display settings, it should look like this:
  6. 1 point
    Thank you very much for taking the time and going to the effort for this, CBR. You're a champ. I'll give it a try Professor Bob
  7. 1 point
    Hey all, I finished this model and here it is. Pretty fun but lots of challenges!

  • Create New...


We are in the progress of finalising upgrade to Cafe 3.0. If you are experiencing issues, please change the default theme to Cafe 2.5 and thing’s should work again. We will notify everyone when we resolve all the issues.

It would be also great if you could report any issue you might have on your side so we can fix them. :cowboypistol: