Jump to content


Regular Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by anglereserve

  1. No problem. I don't know any specific plugins but you could search on the AE Scripts website. There's likely something there....
  2. There's definitely more than one way. XP might not be the best/right tool but it sounds like what you want to do is doable and art direct-able. XP also has a Discord if you want to find some more help and haven't already tried there. There are also probably Data Visualization plugins for After Effects that could do something similar. Alternately Houdini would be a great tool for a setup like this - but simple isn't in that equation. Generally speaking though, if you don't need a simulation of some sort I'd go another route. SIMs always take a super long t
  3. You can change particle scale and color using the Xparticles shader. There are modifiers for life, age, scale, color etc.
  4. It's doable in X particles. You should have what you need in that file. I'm don't really know all the ins and outs of MoGraph but I'm sure someone on the forum could help you if you go that direction.
  5. Rather than having multiple emitters like in the setup I uploaded, you can add groups under the an emitter's "Groups" tab, so they all spawn from a single emitter. Then you can drag those groups into the modifier's "Groups Affected" tab for the modifiers you want to have effect said groups. The result would be similar to what I have except it might be harder to art direct if you want to have multiple emitter object shapes. If you want to just emit from a primitive shape, or a single shape it wouldn't matter though....
  6. Hi There! For a more random look, you could maybe use the xpConstraints object to connect particles with lines dependent on their distance. Once the xpConstraints is applied you have to click the "Display Constraints" check box under the xpEmitter Display tab. if you want to have multiple connected groups, you could add multiple xpConstraints. and use the "Groups Affected" box in the xpConstraints tab. You can art direct using the emitter object shapes and the connection distance as well as all the other typical motion objects etc. Rough scene attached. Connected_Particles_Using_Constra
  7. I would definitely track in C4D. like @briankoko is mentioning the tool-set is more featured and setting up objects is way easier in a full 3D environment. Also you don't have to worry about weird AE caching when you make adjustments. The C4D tracker is more capable of solving a variety of shots including more complex scenes. It also has more information to analyze your track points and is easier/faster if you need to adjust kinks out of your camera path...
  8. Maybe something like this could work for you. It's rough but it could be a decent starting point. I'd probably add more sub divisions and bones on the base mesh to smooth out the movement more. Adding another vibrate tag to the goal gives the tip of the tongue some extra life and control too..... Lizard Tongue.c4d
  9. I've recently switched from AE to Fusion 16 for comps at home (Nuke when necessary and the budget permits). If you haven't used it, I'd recommend checking out the new beta. A lot of the weird color space issues and terrible cache problems that AE sports can be avoided in Fusion for a fraction of the cost of NukeX. Anyway, just a thought for you AE compers out there. Fusion is way more capable and the new beta seems pretty stable so far. If you scroll down a bit it's in latest downloads https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/support/
  10. Could you just apply the texture for the label to a selection and adjust as a separate materiel to the jar? You could also split the lid from the jar, UV the jar and add the texture to your UV texture.
  11. @DNEG It's hard to say without looking at the actual scene. I can look at it and see if I can find the problem.
  12. Agreed on updated modelling Selectors, Set Flow and Creasing. I've been learning Maya and all these are great in that package. UV editor updates and stability. My UV editor crashes C4D all the time on higher poly meshes. Bodypaint and Sculpting could use some love. Something more like Mudbox would be amazing, but stable (unlike Mudbox). Overall Speed. Medium sized scenes really kill Cinema and super detailed stuff isn't very do-able. As for thinking particles I'm fine with XP or Houdini engine. There's already more community support and current information out t
  13. I only use Redshift now. I bought Cycles at the NAB sale but I'm not seeing the same speed that I get out of Redshift. I will definitely give it a good go though to see how well it works with certain aspects of XP. I don't go near Physical, Standard or ProRender.
  14. Looks great. Stitching and textures are spot on.
  15. Glad it worked out for you. Happy Exploding.
  16. Yea, I had the same issue with the forum. The process seems to be broken. I emailed support and they said there should be a confirmation email but there isn't. I'd send a ticket so they can investigate. So for the Initial state. It's in the xpExplosiaFX effects object under the solver tab. Play to the frame you need to and click "Set State." Then that frame will become your first frame.
  17. WHe you Are you using "Set Initial State" to do this or trying to do it in the render settings? If you are doing it in the render settings, you need to do it in the xpExplosia Dynamics object.
  18. @SKaiser I've been working through the one on Lynda.com. It's tedious but thorough when it comes to the interface and basic concepts/workflow. Along side that I'd recommend playing around with the shelf tools too otherwise you'll end up feeling like you aren't getting anywhere. They also have a Houdini engine tutorial but I haven't looked at it yet. Still working through the Houdini Basics one. Here it is : https://www.lynda.com/Houdini-tutorials/Houdini-Essential-Training/571627-2.html?srchtrk=index%3a2 linktypeid%3a2 q%3ahoudini+ page%3a1 s%3arelevance sa%3atrue productt
  19. Yea, Houdini is a pig to learn but rewarding. I think it really depends on how far you want or need to go. One thing I've been finding though, is that I save a lot of time with caching and can run much larger sims when trying to learn Houdini where as I burn out the clock and my ambitions doing the same in XP. I don't regret upgrading XP and buying Cycles but I'm not sure I can give it the full recommend either. Another thing to consider is the job market. There are way more positions available for Houdini users than C4D/XP
  20. After much testing Houdini Indie is the way to go. It's cheaper, more efficient and powerful. You can also use Houdini engine in C4D or cache out VDB files for volumes that would bring XP to its knees. For example, a sim I set up in Explosia took over 4 hours to export as a VDB with a pretty high Voxel size of 1.5. A more complex sim in Houdini Indie took me 10 minutes to cache out for use in C4D/redshift. That being said I really like XP for simple easy to understand set ups and projects that you don't need a lot of resolution for. Like @Cerbera mentions, it's nice to have th
  21. Hi There. I did the same thing - purchased Cycles for use with X-Particles. I'm also a Redshift user. I think it's okay deal at 50% off but after testing a few things out I think I'm going to move to Houdini Indie for Particle based work within the time that it takes for my Maintenance to run out. Cycles is much slower than Redshift in my testing so it feels a bit backwards. I'd say if you are going to use X-particles exclusively for SIMs then it's probably a decent buy, but if you are in it for the long run and are interested in learning Houdini, save your money for that.
  22. Hi There, As far as I know, Explosia is reading this in only as a cache. Maybe you can use the VDB Mesher to achieve what you need to do?
  • Create New...