Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 01/04/2020 in all areas

  1. 1 point
  2. 1 point
    Hi guys, I have a 3D classroom that im rendering using sketch and toon, and in the classroom i have a kid that is a drawn texture. I attached a render and the project file. I found this cool setting in the SHADING options of the renderer where you can exclude objects from sketch and toon shader, however... it seems to be ingnoring the transparency channel of that object which for me is a problem as i have a black area surrounding my png of the texture. I attached the picture. AS you can see the boy has a black border around him. How to fix that so the boy doesnt have this wierd black around him. Its totally ignoring the alpha and transparency of the texture. big thanks guys!!!!! classroomproject collected.rar
  3. 1 point
    Duuuuuuude. Yesterday I decided to bring "Cinema 4d to life" Here's how the plan sounded in me head: I'm gonna create a geometrical vase using a primitive UV unwrap it export texture to PDF print it out cut the pieces from paper put the UV unwrapped geometrical vase together. Yeah right... After following all the steps above, the pieces won't just fit! The dimensions were clearly off, some edges coming shorter than on the UV unwrapped texture, some longer. So I thought ok, perhaps the bloody Phong angle. Brought it down to zero, sent to printer - boom, same sh*t. Can someone explain where did my life go wrong?
  4. 1 point
    CBR Many thanks! As always, your advice worked perfectly!! Thanks for your response! catnap
  5. 1 point
    I like the play on this . . . roaring 20's
  6. 1 point
    Have you ticked 'Add Material' (may be called 'Mix textures' in versions prior to R21) in the second material tag ? Transparency and colour are both additive in that case. In the rough example below I am using transparency to simulate the darker water material, and which is mixed over the other material (via that checkbox), whereas where the wetness appears is governed by the alpha channel in the second material. In addition to the checkbox, 2 things need to be the case for this to work; 1. Your transparency must have a value of less than 100% 2. The tag for the material with transparency needs to be to the right of the first one in the object manager. However, it is worth noting that this is also possible within a single material, despite your different scaling, which can be achieved on an individual layer with the Transform filter in the layer material. For all these methods note you need to preview render to see the mixed material results - it doesn't show in viewport whether its a single material or 2 overlaid ones.. CBR
  7. 1 point
    @Rectro Sorry for the late response. Was a away for holiday. @Wilsonator I worked with the regular Maya (i..e full version) and not with Maya LT or the Indie (correct me if I'm wrong but the Indie is limited only to specific countries. It's not available in mine). All I know about the difference is the Maya LT does not contain any advance features (i.e. no FX toolset, no C++/python plug-ins, no advanced deformers (i.e. delta mush) ) . Personally a deal breaker for me is the no C++/Python Plug-ins/Environment. You only have to use the built-in MEL. Anyhow, yes Maya has an edge for the animation and rigging tool set. After all, it is first and foremost an animation and rigging software. That said, the main factor whether to choose Maya vs C4D for animation is mostly for pipeline for purposes (i.e. if your colleagues are already in Maya, then use Maya). The logic is it's much more cheaper to buy software than retraining artists. In terms of capability, for beginner and medium rigging/animation tasks. I'm indifferent between C4D and Maya. Both can do the job well. For advanced tasks, Maya easily shines. Don't worry about it. You need roughly 1-2 years of rigging experience before you concern yourself with advance features
  8. 1 point
    Just a quick set up of the extra screen. Now I can debug the plugin code on one screen, while working in Cinema4D on the main screen. No need to constantly swap application screens anymore. And that via a single USB (A) cable ... nice. I just don't have the room to fit 28" screens. And with these small monitor sizes I cannot justify for 4K screens. My old eyes already have difficulty reading text on HD screens, let alone 4K. Sure, you can scale up text and graphics ...
  9. 1 point
    Yes. See Key Interpolation Tab in Project Mode of Attributes Manager, then save as startup layout / default scene. I can see why they went for eased motion by default - it does tend to make movement seem more natural, which is probably helpful for beginners, though I also accept what you say that most people who know what they are doing would rather start with Interpolation: none. CBR
  10. 1 point
    I see. I don't have an edge loop on the end like that. I see what you guys were trying to tell me. I will try this. thank you! Edit: SUCCESS ! The key was the "kite quad" hey I learned a new term and trick today! I simply added another loop and made sure it was nice and tight like the pic shown and viola sharp with SDS turned off (pic 1), and sharp with it turned on! (Pic2) What a great welcoming to c4dcafe thank you all for your help. Hope this will help other in the future. tags: subdivision surface, lips, lipstick, mask, sharp edges, eyeliner, nurbs, sharp edge sds, makeup, face paint, lip, mouth, definition,
  11. 1 point
    If you really do want to force SDS into sharp corners like this, then you need a kite quad tight in on the corners. Look at the example below where I am able to achieve astonishingly tight corners despite incredibly low poly base geo... As Rectro points out, this is not how mouths naturally are, and this edge flow is definitely not helpful for animation, but if it is a mask, and therefore presumably not animating, then that is how you most easily get the razor corners under subdivision without resorting to edge weighting. CBR
  12. 1 point
    Hi. As Cerbera said the topology for the mouth is not ideal. You need clean edge loops around the eyes and mouth, then all you need is to have the loops closer for the lip edges. Your better off having fewer polygons to start with, its easier to shape and handle. It looks like your making nice process on it so well done on what you have done so far and the challenge you have taken on. Here is a example.
  13. 1 point
    Thanks Bob, it was little depressing this summer, got a lot of rejections and this was the last place on the list I sent it to so I was really happy they chose it!
  14. 1 point
    Sheesh! I just cannot wrap my brain around it. Obviously my first thought was not correct; all the to-be-merged points are easily close enough to each other to be merged. Final observations: The error happens ONLY if I first select almost all points. Strg-A or dragging a rect selection across the object or using live selection doesn't matter. Once all 144 points are selected, the error happens. If I deselect some points (varying numbers depending on the points), the error does no longer happen - EVEN IF the deselected points have nothing to do with the upper or lower summits!!! I can deselect the outermost points of the petals, which are not even in the polygon loop of either summit, and suddenly the merge shows the desired results. The error always happens or doesn't happen on both poles at the same time. I have not managed to provoke the optimization to treat the poles differently. Setting the maximum distance in the Optimization dialog to 0.05 removes the error altogether. 0.04 doesn't suffice. But as my last post showed, that is far, FAR away from the actual distance of the points I expect to merge. I couldn't find any invisible points that may disrupt the algorithm. Mesh checking does not reveal anything new about that mesh. So, all in all, the fault must be with the Optimize command that just misses two merges under the described circumstances. Sorry, I have neither an explanation for that, nor a solution except to select less points (so the command works) and always to test the results for an optimization with Mesh Checking. I recommend sending this model in with an error description, as I cannot find reason for this happening except a bug.
×
×
  • Create New...