Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 04/08/2020 in all areas

  1. 3 points
    First, to make a group, you do not need to select all elements of the framed group plus the new element to create a group. You can select the whole group at once by shift-clicking the header of the group, in this case "Front". So ultimately you only need two shift-clicks to select all necessary elements. Second, the group is primarily a frame around the selected elements which preserve their relative position at the time of group creation. This relative position can be changed though; elements can still be ctrl-dragged to a new position. So in your screenshot, just ctrl-drag "Photometric" closer to the other elements; no need to take the group apart again. (Bezo said that already) Third, the elements can be multiselected, so if you want to change the sequence in a group by inserting a new element between the existing ones, you can e.g. shift-click "Intensity" and "fall off light" and move them together with ctrl-drag. (This still requires the most clicks as there is no selection frame, and shift-click works as a toggle.) Though... I see that you have only R18, maybe some of these functions do not work there?
  2. 2 points
    Thank you CBR! I've end up using this extrude manual method and pretty satisfied with my result even tough i still have to work on it here and there, here's the result Thank you once again @Cerbera & @Rectro !
  3. 2 points
    As you can see mine is very similar to @Rectro's but with the top made a slightly different way. His version is more polygon-efficient than mine, but mine has more even polygon distribution. Both are equally A-grade models. CBR
  4. 2 points
    Something I made a while ago that I thought could do with a refresh. No Plugins used. The scene file is available for download and I will be making a tutorial to add to that
  5. 2 points
    This guys work in Blender blows me away:
  6. 1 point
    Post an example your actually having trouble with if you like, you could also try CV artsmart if you have access to cinevercity. Could of course be an R21 thing Deck
  7. 1 point
    Everything is a song ..Everything is a dance to us but I get your point..I take 3 steps back and bow in humility
  8. 1 point
    Anyway, let's not derail the threads - and this one is all about the music CBR
  9. 1 point
    In that particular case, the type is still a font, you need to "create outlines" for that in AI, once you save that as AI V8 then it opens fine, at least in my R18, but I get the same result if using just the native font version. I think Cinema doesn't see anything in the font version, hence the empty manager. Deck
  10. 1 point
    I can see them being armed to the teeth... with munchies.
  11. 1 point
    I'm not the person to help with this as I don't have ai, but thanks for uploading the file - now the people that do will have everything they need to diagnose.... CBR
  12. 1 point
    Yes of course... here's the file... Sampler all quads CBR.c4d CBR
  13. 1 point
    No I didn't in the end ! I literally loaded the reference into the front viewport, made the top flat section in that view with symmetry and the polypen, then when I had the basic shape defined I tilted it back 30 degrees, and then altered the overall proportions with regular Scale tool so it continued to match front reference. Then it was just extruding loops downwards (and scaling them out in 2 directions) from the perimeter of that, adding control loops for sharpness under subdivision, and adding a perfect flat base / adjusting loops for better / more even distribution. CBR
  14. 1 point
    This is unlikely to be a bug, it'll be something wrong with the construction of the curves in that ai file. So we'll be needing to see that - pls upload it. CBR
  15. 1 point
    Simply animate growth parameter in for example 60 frames, put sweep object under cloner and use effector what you want (disable all P,S,R,color options) and set parameter "Time Offset" (almost on the bottom of effector parameters tab) to 30 for example (or what you want to offset)... Not sure about name, ´cos I´m not at my computer now, but I think it´s "Time Offset"...
  16. 1 point
    Hi Rectro, thank you for your response! i'll read them first and try. i'll post the result soon Thank you!
  17. 1 point
    Hi Cerbera, thanks for your response i'll try the retopo one as im not so familiar with FFD deformer.
  18. 1 point
    I made this, its a sphere scaled in the Y then used the Plane Cut tool at the angle I want snapping from and to a vert on both sides. i then dissolved the edges not wanted. I used the Plane cut with 3 cuts to get the tight crease. I only repaired one side, deleted the other half and used the mirror tool. I then bridged the gap with quads. Dan
  19. 1 point
    You can begin with a horrible boole but then then tidy up after it, and re-topologise the top into quads. Or you can begin with the flat surface and manually extrude edge loops down into the rest of the shape. Lots of ways to go here. If doing the latter method I would start with a disc object with an FFD deformer on it to get the basic disc shape, then apply that, and carry on from there using the minimum amount of polys to describe the shape, and SDS to add your final smoothing. I'll add some files later that show you in more detail if you are still stuck. Or you could just whack an egg-shaped solid and a cube (subtract mode) in a Volume builder and do it without modelling at all, which would at least give you quads, if not directable edge flow. CBR
  20. 1 point
    Thanks Cairyn Hard to believe how we obsess over an extra click or two, think I need to lighten up Deck
  21. 1 point
    WOW! Thank you sir! It's glad to hear that I get in into right track I will gonna try! Super Thank you sir! Ahbin
  22. 1 point
    Very nice result... CBR
  23. 1 point
    Thats Ok, i messed around with the voxels and more or less got what I was looking for. Thanks again for your help, I appreciate it.
  24. 1 point
    This tutorial from The Pixel Lab is an oldie but goodie but I think there is more control with yours.
  25. 1 point
    This should work if certain steps are followed to ensure you are getting a properly editable mesh before you export it. So your volume builder should be inside a volume mesher, and that you should make editable, or generate a copy from using Current State to Object. That should give you a true polygonal object with no volume builder components remaining, and thus 'should' export correctly as an .obj. CBR
  26. 1 point
    That is not strictly true, either in the real world or in 3D space. But your point remains 'Is SSS going to be the right way to go here ?', and like you, I speculate that 'No' is the answer, because in terms of meaningful thickness it can use I think you are correct. I also agree that the backlight shader is a good thing to try next, and course you must have no thickness in your model for that to work properly. However, implementing that might be awkward to an extent, and still might not give the effect you are looking for, because ultimately, that shader is designed for lamp shades and situations where there is light behind the surface in question, something that almost certainly wouldn't be the case if your petals are on the ground or floating on water. But the only way to know is to try it and see, and doing that might involve preventing your back light (the light itself) from being occluded by the ground / water surface, which you can do in the light properties / include tab. CBR
  27. 1 point
    That is a great example of how the artists skill is more important than the program they pick. It does show how far Blender has come as well.
  28. 1 point
    I can clarify that. First off, in English, the word 'Seam' (here meaning the area where 2 UV islands meet) is a different thing to the word 'Seem' (meaning 'which appears to be the case'). Secondly, you do in fact have 6 polys in your mesh, but you haven't UV'd them correctly yet, so they appear in the editor overlaid atop each other, so that it looks like just a single UV poly. You are getting away with that here in your result because the edge thickness on your leaf is so tiny, that the human eye doesn't notice that the material on them is technically wrongly mapped. CBR
  29. 1 point
    With Shift select (one by one) all parameters in grouped HUD, then (with still holding Shift) click on new item, press right click and select "Make Group" Position inside group you can adjust with holding Ctrl and move...
  30. 1 point
    No. I only used more polys because I thought it made clearer what was a rim and what was a front or back face If the scene has many petals in it, you want to keep polycount per petal as low as possible. Your model will only have 6 polys (1 each for front and back, and just 4 for the rim you added), and that should be fine in this case. In fact the ONLY reason you would consider making this out of more polys is if you wanted to bend or otherwise deform a petal. CBR
  31. 1 point
    Almost anything is possible if you think about it long enough I wouldn't do it with cloth though, as it is very hard to make things look dead and stiff and crinkly with that system... I suspect Pose Morph might be a preferable way to go here. But I think we're going to need a photo of the type of plant you wish to resurrect though - if it was just a seedling that would be one plan, whereas if it was some massive bush or small tree that would require something else entirely. CBR
  32. 1 point
    Yep, there you go. xsThickness.rar CBR
×
×
  • Create New...