Jump to content


Regular Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

6 Noble Beginner

About filipstamate

  • Rank
    C4D Cafe Junior

Profile Information

  • First Name
  • Last Name

Cinema 4D Information

  • C4D Version

Hardware Information

    3900x/2070 Super

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Hmm, how can I set the Tracer spline to work with spline dynamics? I tried the various spline types, but couldn't get it to work. Also, no matter what I use, if I click on "Make editable" the resulting spline will only have 2 points. Only if I right-click and choose "Current State To Object" will the resulting spline be as it was set on the tracer.
  2. Thanks, no problem if it requires Xpresso. I can use Xpresso, but I can't think of how to do it by myself. Of course, if there are other ways to connect the elements like I said without the Tracer, that would also work. Maybe even better since the splines generated by the Tracer don't seem to work with dynamics. Unless you convert them to editable objects. So yeah, a system that's somewhat procedural and generates curves that can use dynamics would be even better. Thanks!
  3. Hi, Can anyone suggest a way to connect a random element from a cloner to a random element from another cloner through a Tracer? Imagine two cloners, both just cloning nulls, set some distance apart. I just want to have random elements from one cloner to have splines traced to random elements from the other cloner.
  4. Nobody has any idea? As I understand it's the same with S22. In fact, that one might be worse since it seems that the viewport quality setting for Xpresso-based Redshift materials doesn't work anymore (changing the viewport texture resolution) and it seems they have issues updating in the viewport. So in S22 I'd be essentially stuck with node-based materials which I can't make show up in the animation preview. I would have thought that since they bought Redshift the integration will be better, but so far I see it's getting worse.
  5. This is probably not Redshift specific, but I stumbled upon this problem when using Redshift. Sorry if it's in the wrong place. So, If I render an OpenGL animation preview using the new Redshift node materials in R21 all show up black. In the viewport they’re fine. Old Xpresso based materials are also fine in the OpenGL animation preview. Is there any way to make the node materials work too in the animation preview? Basically it looks like the animation preview is using the standard/physical node space because when I switch to that all materials are black in the viewport as well. So, can I force the animation preview to use the Redshift node space? Thank you.
  6. Well, really, it's slower than any alternative. OK, technically it's "free", but surely if you make money with C4D then the time savings Redshift provides (not only for the final renders, but for lookdev as well) are worth more than the initial $500 and the $250 per year it costs. I'd say the cost is almost insignificant. If you don't make money with C4D then OK, but I don't really get it how you can afford C4D then. Unless you've got so much money to afford spending thousands on a hobby. In which case, well... the price of Redshift shouldn't mean much.
  7. Ah. My main thing right now is animations, which I can't really do without Redshift. So I was quite happy when I heard MAXON got it. :) I hope it means deeper integration soon, like maybe getting it to use the new nodes from R20.
  8. Fair enough I guess. If you have the resources to do it. I guess I'm biased since I have no interest in it and would prefer to see other things getting attention. Cheers!
  9. Because it seems to me like it doesn't have enough users to be worth it. Which I assume it's also what happened to Bodypaint. Of course, you probably have actual usage statistics, I'm just saying how it looks to me by just seeing that people use in tutorials and on Youtube. Looks like people would even rather use the Physical Renderer. And from the, admittedly little tests I did, I get it since ProRender seems slower that that. And now you have Redshift. You'd probably be better off making that work with AMD cards. If I'm not mistaken there's something in the Redshift FAQ about eventually supporting AMD.
  10. I hope this is one of those corporate speak things. Like you would say "Bodypaint development didn't stop" *winkwinknudgenudge*. Because ProRender really looks like a waste of time and development would definitely be better put somewhere else.
  11. Technically, yes. In practice, if you upgrade every year, then not. And if you want to stay up-to-date then you will update. If not every year, then you'll get penalized anyway for skipping years. So, while I dislike subscription only licenses, in the end there might not be much a difference in terms of how much you pay. This in case you don't intend to just buy it once and then never upgrade. In which case... well... I don't think this discussion applies to you. But that's not the whole point. I'm saying it's expensive for the features it has and the need to complete it with 3rd party plugins in areas that are covered by other programs, no matter if you own the license or not. But hey, I see people here saying that MAXON's profits are actually increasing so I'm probably very wrong and it's not considered expensive by most users.
  12. Would be awesome, indeed. And actually make the tools that have the "Preserve Curvature" option actually do it based on the surrounding geometry because my guess is that what it's doing is just pushing the the edges away, with no calculation involved. A comparison between C4D and Maya in this feature shows a big discrepancy in the results. They don't really have to do it better than XP. They need to be it better than it is. Or better than nothing in the case of fluid simulations. Would be happy with SOMETHING, not necessarily something that beats RealFlow and Turbulence FD. They really need to add transformation axis to the UV editor first of all. Non-uniform scaling in the UV editor is just... ***.
  13. Wouldn't it work to just press "W" to switch to world orientation? That way you don't change the actual axis of the object, and it's something you can use on any object. Just press "W" again to disable it.
  14. I also believe C4D is way too expensive. As someone already said, arguably the most expensive. Even insanely expensive if you take into account the plugins needed to get the same features present in other applications. Yes, C4D has a couple of somewhat unique features too (MoGraph being the most obvious one) but I don't think those make up for the missing and outdated features. And for new users when comparing features, it really does not look good. I mean, even if they don't need , dunno, fluid simulations, why wouldn't they just go into an application that has them? It just looks like better value, and it probably is. It's different for old users who are somewhat tied to the C4D workflow and hoped or keep hoping that it will catch up in the weak areas, but it turns out that also gets more and more irrelevant as instead it's the other applications that start to catch up with C4D's unique features.
  15. Awesome, it worked. I actually did try the spline, but was too dumb to figure how out how to set it up properly. Thank you!
  • Create New...


Dear members, we are aware of few more bugs that are still present withing the theme.We just wanted to let you know that we are working to fix them as soon as possible.


Please be aware that we are manually approving all new registrations, due to spam prevention. Please be patient in case you cannot login right away, we will approve you within 12h or less if we decide you are not potential spammer. 


Thanks for understanding! :cowboypistol: