Jump to content

Hey

please be considerate and disable AD blocker when you are on the C4D Cafe, because it helps us run this forum. We minimalized showing of the AD's all across the forums, so please, be so kind and at least help us by having AD blocker turned off. :cowboypistol:


Check out premium "TD Master Section" training classes in Clubs section  and STORE!

3D-Pangel

Bronze Supporter
  • Content count

    1,428
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    14

3D-Pangel last won the day on June 5

3D-Pangel had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

177 Good

5 Followers

About 3D-Pangel

  • Rank
    Custodian of the (now defunct) 3D World Database

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://3dworldmagazinedatabase.blogspot.com/

Profile Information

  • First Name
    Dave
  • Last Name
    A
  • C4D Ver
    18 Studio
  • Location
    USA
  • Interests
    Christian Theology, the history and future of special visual effects, exercise (weight training and cycling), American football (New England Patriots), MS-Excel programming, financial analysis, any good fiction action novel rooted in science fact, cooking (always on the lookout for a good pasta recipe).

Recent Profile Visitors

4,993 profile views
  1. Wow...just wow! I know you wanted to highlight your sculpting....but the sculpting and texturing on those wings just makes the entire piece. In short, great color design through-out! Really well done. I also get a hint of SSS on the wings as well. Great DOF on the first image too! Dave
  2. Mesh fix

    If this really is the final mesh and and not a sub-divided mesh, then you could could use the polygon pen to retopologize the surface with larger quads. Lots of work. Also, (if memory serves), C4DZone makes a plugin called "Quad caps" that essentially fills holes in your mesh with a pretty perfect array of quad polygons. Now it won't work on curved surfaces so you won't be able to delete the entire patch of affected polygons and have it magically replaced with perfectly aligned quads conforming to the original surface. But you could work on it one section at at time. Again, a lot work. I also wonder if the new LOD tools in R19 might tame this mesh a bit....at least give you larger and less polygon's to work with for editing. Dave
  3. Xparticles 4 release date

    As a long time XP customer (since V1), the discounts were very significant leaving absolutely no room for complaints. And when you give me something at a huge discount (like Cycles 4D), I tend to get it. There was a very good thread in the forum comparing all those renderers. Yes...from what I can recall...while the "professional" renders did fair better that Cycles 4D, so did their costs. What I paid for Cycles 4D is probably 1/10th of a new license cost for some of those professional renderers. And while it may not be "professional", I do hear that the new release of Cycles 4D is not that bad and a vast improvement over earlier versions. Plus you can't argue with the Insydium on-line training videos...that makes it very easy to pickup and learn. So for the cost of a good Saturday night dinner at a nice restaurant, I picked up another GPU renderer. Overall, not a risky choice by any stretch of the imagination Dave
  4. Xparticles 4 release date

    Be sure to read the entire email as that discount code also applies to their upgrade bundle deal: an upgrade to XP4 plus a Cycles 4D license. So normally, the XP4 upgrade is 220 pounds and Cycles 4D is 185 pounds (405 pounds total). Their bundle deal is 350 pounds. But you can apply the 15% or 25% discount to that bundle deal as well which drops the price to 297.5 pounds or 262.5 pounds. That's like getting Cycles 4D for 42.5 pounds. Almost makes it a no brainer. Dave
  5. I just got my email explaining my discount on the XP4 upgrade as a long standing customer from V1. ....oh my..... All my complaints and criticisms in this thread about the fee to unlock my XP3.5 license are a personal embarrassment to me now in the face of such a generous show of support for loyal customers. My sincere apologies to the good people at Insydium...why I ever doubted you is beyond me. December 5th can't come fast enough. Dave
  6. Very nice. Thank you very much for sharing. And now allow me to share...... If you loved that, then you will love these: Mosa Tile Generator: http://generator.mosa.com/app/?#search SmartNorMap (make your own normal maps online): http://www.smart-page.net/smartnormal/ And while not programs, some good free stuff here: Free PBR: https://freepbr.com/ Free HDRI: https://hdrihaven.com/hdris/ Still more FREE HDRI: http://noemotionhdrs.net/index.html Always some good free stuff from Artstation: https://www.artstation.com/artwork/8v61m Need a panoramic cloud shot?: http://www.artssphere.com/textures.php How about cut-out images of people: http://skalgubbar.se/ Or do you wish to set something on fire: http://mitchmartinez.com/4k-fire-stock-footage/ (be sure to check out his bullet time examples) And in case you ever get tired of what you are doing and just want to zone out and relax: https://www.skytimelapse.com/2017/ ...all the product of a misspent life surfing the web (...or just being really good with search engines). Dave
  7. Firs thing done in cd4

    Very good! Also thanks for sharing! I remember that I was a a bit nervous posting my first work. Relative to tutorials, Cineversity is always a great place for tool specific instruction whereas other sites may focus more on project or technique based tutorials. When just starting out, you need both. With that said, you are off to a great start. Dave
  8. Just outstanding.....in every single way imaginable! I just love the lighting more now that you said it was without GI Dave
  9. Dave, Okay....that is what I expected. As a long standing XP user, my 3.5 license was still locked. Personally I am very happy that you are doing away with locked licenses. What I also perceive is that Insydium began to realize that what started as a way to get people into XP at a lower price point, offering two license types for each version was becoming cumbersome to explain and maintain and costing more in effort than it gained in revenue. Had your paragraph above been in the emails you sent out and explained the history of how old-time users got to this point, then it would have made perfect sense and I would have recognized that the 50% discount was a fair way to respect those who already had paid for an unlocked license. Rather those emails spent a good deal of time selling people on why unlocking your 3.5 license was a good thing with a few added throw away lines about how you can't get to XP4 without it. Hopefully you can understand how alarming that can be from the perspective of those who are not as close to the history as you are. I think explaining the history, the change in direction and a tacit admission (or implied inference) that offering two license options for each version was not a good idea is a good way to close out this topic in this thread. I appreciate the additional context and taking the time to provide it. I am all set. Dave A
  10. I have to agree with Cutman here and I even wrote Insydium for clarification because there was a clear sense of disbelief that a company as customer centered and loyal to their users in the past would create such a situation. Like Cutman, I was also thinking about purchasing Cycles 4D with XP4 but will now have to rethink that. Now what I find confusing is Dave O'Reilly's statement "All X-Particles 4 Licenses will be Unlocked as were all new X-Particles 3.5 licenses". So this would imply that if you were an XP3.5 license holder, then you would NOT need to pay the 30 pounds to upgrade to XP4 because your 3.5 licenese is already unlocked. But this is not what the sales team from Insydium told me as I asked them a very direct question: Note that I wrote this thinking that my license of XP3.5 was node locked. In this forum, Dave says it isn't. Now the response from Kathryn at Insydium did not clear that up but only re-enforced the message that I need to unlock my 3.5 license...see below: Notice that Dave's response in this forum exactly matches the response I got from Kathryn at Insydium. So honestly, I have no idea what to believe and just shelled out the 30 pounds. Were all my licenses locked because I was a loyal user since XP1 including XP3.5? That makes no sense if they wanted to end node-locking with XP3.5. Even his explanations above that go beyond the canned responses do not help clearly define the logic. Pretty disappointed that a user-friendly group like Insydium has turned into yet another big corporation dependent on canned phrases in confusing situations.
  11. I would love to see XP4 do this: The video (available for download only) is from Ron Fedkiw, mathematics professor at Stanford University who also developed some the fluid and physic simulation tools used by ILM (I think it is called PhysBam). If XP 4 can do cloth and fluids, then can it do a multi-simulation, where one sim drives another sim (or n-systems....I think it is called) Dave
  12. I will admit that logical layout of the user-interface is a nice feature of this plugin so preserving a clean GUI but at the same time providing additional features and options will be a challenge. I can only suggest using tabs on the existing window. Tabs could be as follows: Weld - This is where you put options for eliminating co-existing faces, whether or not the widget is protruding or extruding (the top three buttons on the existing window), whether you are welding or floating, etc. One other option is whether or not to scale the widget to the selection or not. This would be grayed out if you have Weld selected because in that situation, scaling to the selection is the default. Adjust - The angular controls on the current layout Populate - Are you populating one widget at a time or are you auto-populating within a selection (with a window for providing the named selection). For either is it a 1x1, 2x2, 3x3 (via drop down list box). If you are auto-populating, then a future option could be to allow either full population or alternate. An example of alternate would be that if you selected 3x3, then between every 3x3 grid of polygons in that selection which do get a widget is another 3x3 group of polygons that don't get a widget. Just a thought. Below each of these windows are static controls that don't change with each tab for selecting the asset, executing the plugin on the asset and Undo. Again, just some more thoughts. But at the very minimum, I think the option to eliminate co-existing faces is critical and must be incorporated somewhere. Dave
  13. Okay.....what I noticed in the discussion to date is that all the widgets only fuse to the parent at the base. Also, all examples shown in this thread have the widgets on every other polygon of the parent and NOT on adjacent polygons of the parent. Therefore, I am not sure if the following two things are possible within the plugin: If two widgets are placed on adjacent polygons on the parent, would the bases of adjacent widgets fuse to each other? What if other polygons other than the base were to touch when placed on adjacent polygons? Would they fuse as well? Here are some images to help explain what I am asking - first start with the design of the widget Therefore, if you follow the rule that the faces no do not exceed the extents of the base, when populated on adjacent polygons on the parent, you get the following result: If done correctly, some neat shapes could be created Now, what I also picked up in this thread is that you can only place one widget at a time. Pick a polygon on the parent object, populate it with a widget, pick another polygon on the parent, populate it with a widget, etc. What I did not see is the ability for the plugin to select multiple faces on the parent and to automatically populate every selected face with the same widget (eg an "auto-populate all" capability). Is that possible? If so, then is it possible for you to extend the 1x1, 2x2, 3x3, etc capability discussed in the third post. That post discussed sizing a single widget across a single group of 1x1, 2x2 or 3x3 selected polygons. Therefore, would it be possible to place multiple widgets across 1x1, 2x2 or 3x3 adjacent polygons within a much larger selection of adjacent polygons on the parent? That is, say you select a large group of adjacent polygons on the parent and then define whether you want the widget to populate 1x1 (every polygon), 2x2 (every group of 4 poygon's: 2 in the X and 2 in the Y), 3x3 (every group of 9 polygons, 3 in the X and 3 in the Y) etc. So say you have a selection that is 12x12 polygons in size. With 1x1 selected, 144 widgets get automatically populated (one on every polygon of the plane). With 2x2, 36 widgets get populated: one for every adjacent set of 2 polygons in the X and Y), and with 3x3, 16 widgets get populated on that parent plane (one widget for every adjacent set of 3 polygons in the X and Y). The 3x3 example shown in the image below should help explain this: Again, this could lead to some interesting shapes when subdivided Hopefully this helps explain what I was asking. Again, not sure if all this capability is already in the plugin or not so my apologies if it is. Thanks, Dave
  14. Intergalactic Mushrooms

    Beautifully done! Easy to vote for this and happy to do so!
  15. Will do because I am sure it will make a great feature.....unfortunately, I am on a business trip so I won't get to it for a few days.

×