Jump to content


Cafe Crew
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Days Won


Cerbera last won the day on April 3

Cerbera had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3,059 C4D Cafe High Order Member

About Cerbera

  • Rank
    Imperial Archon

Profile Information

  • First Name
  • Last Name
  • Location
    South East, UK

Cinema 4D Information

  • C4D Version
    Alpha | Beta

Hardware Information


Recent Profile Visitors

19,066 profile views
  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. No need for a palette especially. All this functionality is available in the r-click menu when you are in any spline edit tool. CBR
  4. Hmmm. It was a long shot, but hey ho... Ok, so baking out the whole animation doesn't work - what happens if you try and nail down the camera mapping into the UV before it goes under the Voronoi ? If that is going to work, then you should be able to r-click the texture tag that is setting the camera projection, and see the 2 options Generate and Assign UV Co-ordinates not greyed out. So the next question... are they greyed out for you ? And is that still the case if you delete any existing UV tag for that object ? If so, then that plan is a fail too and I'm out of ideas. But if you can access them, then do the Generate UVs option, and see if that works. Let us know how you get on. CBR
  5. Just checking you have tried stick texture tag. My hopes aren't high that it will work, but we should at least try to make sure it doesn't... CBR
  6. No I couldn't find it (and now seem to remember I couldn't last time this was asked either !) so maybe those keywords are no good after all. So made you a quick setup that demonstrates the main principles involved. The essential stages are as follows: 1. Get 2 plane Primitives, one of which will have 1 x 1 segments and represent the wall behind the paint, and another with much more subdivision, raised mm above it, to represent the paint layer. 2. The paint plane needs to be editable, then you need to select some randomish points on it with any of the selection tools like in my example. The density of those points will define how small the paint flakes are, so if you want loads of smaller ones you need quite a dense point field. 3. A cloth tag is added to the paint plane, and in the Dresser Tab, we call the points selection we made earlier and Fix points on those, which will turn them pink. 4. In that cloth tag we need to set gravity to about +5, and activate Use Tear in the main cloth tab, and set a suitable value, which will be between 101 and 150%. 5. None of this will work unless your paint plane is a child of a Cloth Surface, which has actual thickness, so add a mm or 2 here, but not any additional subdivision unless you need more detail in the tears. 6. Lastly the cloth surface goes under regular SDS (but only Level 1 or 2 max) which rounds everything off, and should give you a result vaguely like mine below... The last stage is all experimentation where you vary all the settings in the tag, and change the number of fixed points to get more specifically the look you want... one of the most important settings to get that sort of ethereal ghostly feel is drag. So here we are using positive gravity alone to wrench the cloth upwards, which is fine for test purposes, but not actually what we want if your walls are vertical. So in that case, and assuming your setup is now facing a direction other than Y=up, gravity should be set to a low negative value, and you should force the tearing another way, like with wind (either in the cloth tag itself or more controllably via particle forces), and then just let gravity and drag float it all downwards. Hope that helps CBR
  7. 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
  8. Lols, yeah, that might start out calm enough, but you're gonna end up quite stressed when it all kicks in Great tune though. CBR
  9. Please take care to post in the correct category, which is not General Discussions if it's a question. Yep, there is an established technique to do this with pinned points and cloth tearing, and someone has already made a video about it. I just gotta find it now I think the keywords we need are 'c4d peeling paint'. It has also been asked / referenced a few times before on the cafe, so searching here might also help. CBR
  10. This is something I should know the answer to, but to my surprise, don't ! So I will add myself to the list of grateful people when someone tells us the answer ! Nice one @bezo CBR
  11. 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
  12. As soon as you add points to an object that already has a UV, you will break that existing UV, so all of that stage has to be done again now. If that object used a bitmap texture, then you would also need to add graphics for the new polys you added to that existing texture, and then realign / re-organise the UV space to take your additions into account and make the new UVs line up with your newly edited bitmap texture. However, in the case of something as simple as a petal I would imagine that you don't need 3 separate UV islands (front / back / rim) within the main map - you still need 2 (front / back) but now one of those islands should also encompass the new side/rim polys as well. So if that is the case, we can redo those UVs very easily with just 1 UV seam, and simple Frontal Projection to give you the lslands you need. If you get that right you probably won't even need to edit the original image - just slightly scale down either the front or back UVs so that the new rim polys also fit within the area previously describing only the front. Here's an example (higher poly than yours) that shows how those polys should be seamed and laid out... 1. Define your UV seam / edge selection as follows... Then go into UV edit layout, select the front and rim polys only, and do a frontal projection from an orthographic viewport, followed by a relax so that the rim polys become an extension of the front ones. Then do the same for the remaining back polys, and arrange both the UV islands over the existing image you can load into the UV Edit's UV window, This should give you a result broadly like below... So now you can see the rim polys are part of the front face UV island, and once that front face has been aligned and scaled down slightly to match your bitmap, should give you the result you need. CBR
  13. I could recreate this from what you have said, but some of it is a bit ambiguous, or could be interpreted in various ways, so uploading your scene file is still the best way to make sure we have a full understanding of how your scene is working. My initial instinct though is that what you want is outside the scope of that effector, so we may be looking at doing this another way... CBR
  14. Both tags are attempting to control the object's movement in contrary ways, so logic should tell you that this cannot work unless you find a way to tell Cinema which one has priority. Fortunately, that is what the 2 parameters Follow Position and Follow Rotation are for in the forces tab of the dynamics tag. There you can set a balance... CBR
  15. You are not the only one. Please send a full bug report to MAXON via regular support channels - they will want to hear about this, and may have suggestions for fix. CBR
  • Create New...