Jump to content

BLSmith

Regular Member
  • Content Count

    165
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

BLSmith last won the day on June 13 2019

BLSmith had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

29 Noble Beginner

About BLSmith

  • Rank
    Cafe Ronin

Profile Information

  • First Name
    Brandon
  • Last Name
    Smith
  • C4D Version
    19.053 Studio
  • Location
    Milwaukee, WI

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Lets say I have three boxes: Goal: Overlay a red line through all of these boxes while keeping the boxes original colors. Ultimate project goal is to simulate an electric current traveling from the bottom > top > bottom of several objects. Since I have no idea how to do that stylistically, I am satisfied with a line for now. Actions taken: Went to "Create > shader > c4doctane > new material", "opacity > texture > gradient" to create this: Solution Attempt 1: Placed this new transparent material to the "GROUP" object. It did not work. Solution Attempt 2: Selected "CUBE A, CUBE B, CUBE C" > "Connect Objects + Delete" > and placed transparent material to this new object. It did not work. Solution Attempt 3: Applied transparent material individually over each object. While the original colors did display (progress) this line appeared as three separate lines around each box individually. I want a single line to surround all three boxes as if it were a single object. Once more: The goal with this is to have a single line travel all the way around these three cubes while retaining the original material type underneath it I've attached the file below complete with each of these solution attempts. Hopefully I made this easy enough to understand, if you have any questions please let me know. ELECTRIC SLIDE V3.c4d
  2. After some discussion with my manager, we decided to scrap this idea in favor of another idea as this concept was taking me away from other projects. The replies you've given though have been really helpful to opening my understanding of some of the possibilities. Thanks!
  3. The items would fall out of the toolbox and onto the floor. The tools would land where gravity takes them, and the letters would fall into a position that spells out a word. Here's a 20 second video showing sorta what I'm thinking about: Would your idea still apply in this specific situation? Thanks Cerbera!
  4. I've got a toolbox, filled with a bunch of tools, and 9 letters. The goal is the pour the contents of this toolbox out onto the floor, the tools fall anywhere, but the the letters fall into place to spell out a word. I'm having difficulty trying to understand the proper way of doing this. At first I thought I would be able to keyframe a start/end point for the text dynamics tags, but I appear not to understand how that works at all. Any tips appreciated, thanks!
  5. Great video Jed! Loved the zooms, curser color, resolution, pans, no fluff, changing values to show more than one example of a changed value. Much more valuable than 99% of most tutorials out there :) I'm gathering that there isn't a way to "unsnap keyframes," and working from within Xpresso is the cleanest way to accomplish what I'm trying to do. Thanks all.
  6. Thanks guys for the replies, I was super busy this week, so here we go! Hi @Hrvoje Mostly just as an experiment to see if I can drag the whole timeline out where each keyframe slides to a very specific keyframe (say keyframe 9.225) instead of a whole number. Hi @westbam Yeah this is definitely a method, the only thing about it that I don't like is you can't see all your frames on a nice and concise timeline. You'll have 99% of your keyframes between say between 0-300 and then one that's 0-300,000+ kinda triggers my OCD lol! I was hoping for a way to allow for keyframes to be placed on a non-zero keyframe like keyframe 9.225 instead of 9, for example. Hi @jed! This is likely due to my poor understanding of how key-frames work, or worse, my inability to understand of radians/pi ;) What I was trying to convey is lets say you have a 3 frame animation. There something that rotates 360 degrees every 2 frames, then you have something that rotates 360 degrees in 3 frames, my understanding is this is a 2/3 ratio (0.66), but if you dragged all key-frames over so that the project was 4 frames long, the second key-frame might shift from frame 3 to 4, but the first key-frame might stay the same, making that ratio (0.5). What I am wondering if there is a way that if you were to drag all keyframes out, is if you can keep identical proportions. If I dragged the length of all key-frames from project length of 3 frames to 4 frames, could that first key-frame somehow become 2.64 to keep the ratio correct, or does C4D only operate in whole numbers for frames?
  7. Hi everyone. Simple one today: The Specific Goal: Two gears, one with 39 teeth, another with 28, rotate 360 degrees in 60 frames and set "Track after," to "continue." So it loops forever. The Challenge: Using whole numbers, this is not possible. The question: Can frames be subdivided down several decimal places? I realize there are other options such as: Xpresso Putting the second keyframe far off (say at frame 1092 by multiplying 39 x 28). Dynamics But I am simply curious if I can divide up key-frames smaller than the whole of their parts. I must be using the wrong terms in my search results and I've come up empty. Thanks all. I will be back Monday to follow up. PS: My Broader Goal: If I can unlink key-frames from their nearest whole number, I can accurately stretch and compress a series of key-frames on location sensitive items (like gears), but keep their proportions 100% accurate.
  8. I think I'll start there with something I can follow in terms of its relevance to current C4D indeed. Thanks Cerbera! Definitely know a lot more now than when I started the thread :)
  9. Ohh I see, I think. So this is my understanding: So with the loft still active, we can't create a cap because because it is not an editable object. We make the loft object editable in its easiest form to divide, in this case 9 subdivisions (but really 8) segments, which can be easily eyeballed with the knife tool to make into 4 slices, and we get that quality control back once we apply a subdivision surface. By converting the loft object hierarchy to an editable polygon to it's simpliest form, we also make our file size smaller, and the subdivision surface is really only adding complexity (my poor choice of words) during render time. Subdivison surfaces wants only quads when subdividing. By having the inner bevel (image 3), we allow for a border of sorts around the edges so they aren't going in two different directions (image 2) which is better. I'm a little unsure the reasons for this. I think I need to do more work on understanding basic concepts such as what edge flow is. After a quick google brought me right back to C4D Cafe, I'm considering starting this youtube playlist if it's still useful in C4D 7 years later:
  10. Sorry for the delay! Works been crazy. Thanks so much for the video Cerbera! Learned a ton, your like the Gordon Ramsy of modeling. To boil it down, I think of it like Knex where each piece connects to the next and the order of each joint creates the shape we ultimately see, if the pieces are out of order all heck can break loose. To create the caps, as we talked about in the previous step, while a "triangle," cap type would work, it would be super ugly. To fix this, one could change the Loft cap type to "n-gons," but if it's ever a child of a Subdivision Surface (SDS), it will ultimately look just as ugly as it did when it was set to "triangles". A good method to fix this, is simply not to have Loft caps, but address it in an additional step. To generate a new cap: Select all the splines, set the shape as editable > enter edges mode > right click and choose "close polygon hole," select the cap edges and click. By default, the new caps are not split into quads and IRRC @Cerbera is a big fan of making sure each piece of the model is split into quads. Using the knife tool, each cap should have 4 sides rather than being a flat piece. Whats more, there should be better edge flow (a term I need to learn). To create a better edge flow, with the live selection tool active while in polygon mode, select the new cap quadrants > right click and choose "bevel inner," while click dragging to create more definition on the caps. Two questions: What is the difference in setting the "Mesh Subdivision," inside the object tab of a loft vs. having that mesh setting be as low as possible (9) so that an SDS can take control of it? What makes a good cap? So in the image above, the left example is "bad," because it is a large piece connected by 8 sides, and I suspect that's bad because it should be 4. So we create 4 more polygons by slicing it down the middle, now each quadrant connects to 4 lines (I suck at the verbiage), but what prompts creating an inner bevel? Thanks! :)
  11. To Bezo: So if I understand correctly, lets draw a spline, each point can be given a number (say 1-8), and then we draw another spline with another 8 points, the loft object will draw geometry between each corresponding points (as illustrated by the yellow boxes below on these two splines). To Cerbera: Interesting! I see what you mean about caps being messy. Thanks guys for the comments. It's a bit difficult still to wrap my head around priorities but I suppose knowing the rules is half the battle and I can guess change the order a few times and eventually I'll get the order right.
  12. Hi all. Lets say I have 3 splines in the shape of a rectangle, each spline smaller than the last. Now lets say I put those three splines under a Loft object. As I move one of the splines along the Z-axis, a border is now visible around the other two splines, however, if I change the hierarchy of those three spline objects in the object manager, moving that same spline produces a different look. Can anyone explain how a series of splines under a Loft works? I've never modeled anything before and am taking baby steps. Thanks! Video version of the above question (2 minutes): Thanks!
  13. It looks like you indeed can slow down a cached X-Particles Cache tag with the scale parameter, but unfortunately since cache is 30fps, reducing the speed of a 30fps cache by 66% simply makes it a 10fps laggy animation. I had poked around in the Cache tag hoping I could generate a new cache at a higher FPS using the original animation at full speed and then simply slow that down but it doesn't appear that's an option sadly.
  14. Thanks Cerbera. Yeah it took about 16 takes but I figured you can only properly ask your initial question once, and poorly framed questions often lead to messy and confusing threads that don't address the core issue. Checking back every few hours with immense interest. Looking forward to any potential replies!
  15. Hi everyone. I have two questions: 1. In X-Particles (XP), can I slow down a cached version of a particle simulation? 2. In TurbulanceFD (TFD), can I slow down a cached version of a particle simulation? Here's a video version of my question with context: I have a mechanical animation that currently works perfectly with the XP and TFD simulations in place, but I need to slow down the mechanical animation by approximately 100x, but I really would like to not have to rebuild the XP and TFD simulations from the ground up because it was so difficult to get them to where they are now I'm afraid I forgot how I did it. If anyone can help with ether the TFD/XP side, is willing to reply here on this thread, Discord, Skype, Google Hangouts, etc., I would really appreciate it. If you charge by the hour DM me your price and I'll see if I can make that work. I will make a short recap-video explaining the solution when we're done so others can learn from it. Thanks.
×
×
  • Create New...