Jump to content

3D-Pangel

Regular Member
  • Content Count

    1,826
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    43

Everything posted by 3D-Pangel

  1. Are we talking about the hand and the wrist coming together in the top video? Honestly, I don't think that the hand and the wrist are joined as one piece of geometry. I still see creases indicating that both models are unique.
  2. I agree with both you on the points that you are making: 1) That I am brilliant and 2) We need an optimize command for splines! ...sometimes I crack myself up. But given that splines can get wonky (and you would think that is not usually the case), Cerbera has a valid point. Dave
  3. Your coffee depletion aside, coming from you that comment to me is high praise. Printing that one out and putting in the refrigerator!!! Glad I could help. Dave
  4. You don't need any plugins. Here is how you do it. 1) Place the spline under an extrude under a connect: Extrude the spline by a huge amount in the Y axis (like 2000 cm) Then hit current state to object. That should give a set of connected polygons. Use a rectangular selection in a side view and ONLY select the bottom plane of polygons. With that selection, then hit "Edge to spline". You should now have your connected spline as well as you extruded polygons. See attached; Coastline-connected.c4d I hope that helps. Dave
  5. So what renderer is being used in that Insydium video? Is it AR or Cycles? My key question is this: at the start of the video (around 0:40) they show these VERY simple controls for adjusting smoke and fire. Does that level of control work with C4D's native Advanced Render or were they using Cycles 4D? Just wondering if you still need to export VDB data to Redshift to get that level of real time adjustment. Hopefully, you lucky beta testers will be able to provide some insight. Thanks, Dave
  6. Welcome back and thank you for making your plugin free to the community. Just wondering if you have used R21 (either in demo mode or via a license). I ask because I would be interested to know if the corner cases handled better by your plugin were resolved with the bevel improvements made in R21. Learn more here: Now...don't get me wrong..this is NOT a criticism of any sort. Anyone who can develop a bevel plugin deserves my immediate respect as the math is incredibly complex. So kudos to you. Recognizing that level of complexity, I would NOT be surprised that even the work they did in R21 sufficiently captures "every" situation. Therefore, just wondering what holes your plugin fills. Thanks, Dave
  7. I love it. They just keep get better and better..... You are like the "Beeple" of animation/compositing/VFX work... What a neat legacy of memories you are creating, especially if you keep going as she get's older. Just imagine 20+ years from now when you have all those animations playing on a continuous loop (via holographic projection of course) during some major event in your daughters life (graduation, wedding, etc). Dave
  8. Okay....if you are NOT yet convinced to stick with XP, this should do it: Honestly....this just blows my mind. It looks WAY more easier to use than TFD with far better results! Again, Insydium just kills it! Unbelievable. Dave
  9. If MAXON ever offered a sale such as 30% off the next 5 successive perpetual license upgrades (from R22 through R26) ....I would take out a loan. ...yep...I keep dreaming. Dave
  10. Wow....amazing. I do appreciate the amount of work you put into those 6 seconds and can therefore understand your first comment: "Now I know why just 1 person does not make shorts" Not sure what you have planned, but I hope that the lighting, modeling, texturing and rigging (which you did to an outstanding level of perfection) were the lions share of the work that needed to be done. Hopefully, the rest of the work (animating?) goes quicker and therefore keeps your interest and energy level high so that we benefit from seeing more. So please don't be discouraged! I personally can't wait to see what comes next! Dave
  11. Good question that requires Jawset to answer. Jawset should allow you to link to a new machine within an existing license. People do upgrade their hardware and hard drives do fail (I would assume that the MAC address of your hard drive is how your machine is identified to Jawset). So they have to allow changes. Question is though....how often. Usually there is a set number of times you are allowed to link an existing license to a different machine or a set period of time between when you can change that hardware link within an existing license. Usually, the limit is on the number of times you can change your hardware within an existing license as that is easier to control. Whatever the control is, Jawset needs to protect themselves against users using a volume license like a floating license...and protect themselves from all the annoying user requests to make those changes. If you do get an answer, please let us know. Dave
  12. You are welcome. Now...let me confuse you some more. Do not be intimidated by X-Particles. I can understand your reluctance to get X-Particles because it is just a massively huge program only because it does so much: particles, fluids, smoke, cloth, volume breaking, volume rendering, grains, dynamics and multi-physics where one physical simulation affects another simulation (like a stream of water hitting a blanket and the cloth simulation on the blanket reacts to the fluid simulation and the fluid simulation in turn reacts to the cloth simulation). On the plus side, XP is very modular. You don't need to learn EVERY part of the program and can easily get amazing smoke effects with just as much ease as you could get from TFD. The only advantage of TFD is that it has its own build in renderer whereas XP really works best with Cycles 4D if you are looking for volumetric rendering. BUT....you have Redshift which is a much better and faster render engine than Cycles 4D and it can do volume rendering as well. Now, XP is almost twice the cost of TFD ($769 USD vs $469 USD) but that additional $300 gets you about 5 more simulation packages (fluids, grains, cloth, volume breaking, and particles) which all work together! Now, you do have to pay an annual maintenance, but XP just keeps growing! I would be hard pressed to find any current XP user who does not feel that they are getting their money's worth from their maintenance plan. Now let's talk about XP training. Bob Walmsley is a tremendous teacher. He is the Hrvoje of Insydium. Clear, concise and he takes you through all the traps and pitfalls that you may encounter when using the program ("So why did nothing happen?") and then explains how to get the program to do what you wanted it to do, why it didn't work the first time and the logic behind it all (which is the most important part). His teaching just sticks. Hear it once and you get it immediately. In fact, I do most of my learning watching one of his tutorials while on the exercise bike. I don't have C4D open...I just listen and it all sticks! He's that good! I have and love TFD....but I got it long before XP ever came out. I am glad I have both as TFD is great to use if you need to add something quick without too much fuss. Now if you want to do something truly amazing, you need to get XP. Almost as powerful as Houdini and infinitely easier and more fun to use. Dave
  13. TFD is a great program but in all the years that I have been using that program (since 2012) I have never seen a sale. BUT..... That program is faithfully supported with a constant set of updates all free of charge. In short, you pay once and then never pay again for maintenance contracts or new licenses for future C4D versions. To me, that is a deal. Here is a quick snapshot of all there updates over the years (not sure why I save them...it must be the process engineer in me - we tend to be pack rats and document everything): So in the long run, TFD is a pretty good deal. Pay for it once and never pay again. Not sure how Jawset stays in business over all these years unless their user base just keeps growing, but with that model you can clearly understand why they never have a sale. With that said, there is a rumor that a MAJOR release is coming from Jawset. Not sure what, but it sounds like a stand alone simulation program (which most likely still supports C4D). No idea of dates but it does make sense as TFD has been at Version 1 status as long as I have used it with no significantly NEW features (like liquids, flow field visualizations, built in particle systems, etc) other than refinements, speed increases and the ability to work with other plugins as they get updated (eg. X-Particles). I mention that ONLY because I have no idea how Jawset will handle the release of that new program/version with their existing customer base -- especially considering (as you noticed) they never offer a sale. But then again, no guidance either on whether you should wait or not. Hey, it has been over 8 years after all. Final point being....better to know now than not know. Dave
  14. Absolutely agree! Very hard to walk away from all the fluid/VFX awesomeness. Yes. TFD is also easier to use but it really slows down when it has to work with XP...which is a big pain point for me. But then again, shading XP fire simulations is not as straight forward as TFD and you only get really good results with Cycles 4D.....again another pain point. Probably the best path for both speed and quality is to cache the VDB file from XP and use Redshift. But I agree...they should really improve their fire shading such that there is NO reliance on more plugins. Dave
  15. Okay....is this from the XP 2021 release program? Seriously....there is just so much packed into this update it is amazing. Personally, I felt that the original FLIP solver was a little clunky (slow, poor collisions, particles leaking out all over the place). Putting it side by side with the APIC solver in the speed test at 4:47 really drives home the point. I am thinking that the redone fluid solver is also what is behind all the other advancements like flowfields and the ocean solver. I would love to see how this works with grains (more speed improvements?). My excitement level is growing. After each video I need a cigarette (wink...wink...nod...nod...you know what I mean). Again, just amazed at Insydium. With each new release I keep thinking "Wow...look at all they have added! There is no way they can top this release". But they do...every time. As they keep topping themselves, maybe I need to raise my expectations. So here goes: Is large scale fluid simulations finally within reach? Do we dare hope for something similar to this in our future? Dave
  16. Plus I just completed working 20 years at Cisco on June 19th. Normally they give you something you really don't want as an anniversary gift (monogrammed serving tray, liquor decanter, luggage). This year they did something new....Visa gift cards. That surprise hit me yesterday! Again, perfect timing. Dave
  17. Just refreshed and it works now. Phew. Pretty good deal...on a perpetual license of course. And the timing is great as I was looking for a reward after having successfully putting my youngest daughter through college!!! Dave
  18. Hmmm....went to MAXON link in the first post and got the coupon code (SUMMER30). Then I went to the Redshift web-site and entered the code. This was the result: ...so did anyone tell Redshift about this sale? Today is the 23rd isn't it? ...maybe it really is all fake news and malarkey again! That's it, I am going to Verizon and demanding my Corona beer!!! Dave
  19. Given my long term views on subscriptions, I already tested FBX export in R21. It works quite well on re-import to R20 as well as to Blender. Now I did this with standard traditional shaders and NOT the new nodal shader system. But, your best bet on moving files to other platforms and/or earlier releases is probably going to be FBX. Dave
  20. So all the beer that Verizon was promising me for switching to 5G is just fake news and a bunch of malarkey! Do you mean to say that I can't trust the internet!!! What is this world coming to. ...in short...speak to a human as suggested. As for me, I also try to get to a confirmation email just to insure that there was no misunderstanding from the conversation. MAXON USA has always been pretty accommodating about that. Dave
  21. Well...that just made Realflow look....inadequate. Dave
  22. A really fun tool. Amazing that it is now free and stand alone. That just goes to show how far we've come with 3D particle/fluid simulation systems as why would anyone want to use a 2D sprite based program when the results are so much better with current tools. But I remember playing with the Particle Illusion demo back in 2007 and was completely amazed at its ease of use and power. It was just fun to use. I actually recommended its interface to an old trueSpace developer (Primitive Itch --- anyone remember him) to change his UI for his 3D particle system (PPFX) to follow Particle Illusions UI. He reached out to PI's developer and got permission to change it. The old PI also has a built in masking tool (called blockers) to integrate particles into live action backgrounds. That no longer exists in the stand alone version (as best as I can tell) probably because there was no need for it in on-going development when it started to get integrated into compositing tools like AE. Here is an example image from the old 2007 version that I made (it took forever to do the masking): Lots of fun. Quick results...easy to use. Definitely worth the time to check-out....if only to learn from the UI design. Still no replacement for the ever amazing X-Particles, but it could be useful if you need a quick particle fix and don't want to go through all the steps in a normal 3D based system. Dave
  23. This is huge! Ever since Vue decided to stop supporting their Carbon Scatter plugin for C4D I have missed this capability (not wanting to invest in Surface Spread). Insydium.....they just keep going! All they need to do is develop a modeling programs and then all their plugins will walk off and form their own DCC app. Dave
  24. This video here (from 0:27 onward) is what I am talking about. Maybe I am mis-interpreting what PolyDup can do more so than Polygnome but I use Polygnome for duplicating "closed" or "solid" objects onto other objects by aligning faces to faces (put a 2x3 object onto set of selected 2x3 array of polygons). What I interpret from that video link is that PolyDup can use "open" objects and re-arrange them on their open edges. That is, the edges (not the faces) can be selected to add another level of PolyDup polygons. This is best illustrated here: Note that in the re-arranged object on the right, the middle and bottom "open" sections were swapped but you did that by selecting their edges rather (they were open so that there were no faces to select). Here is the file where I have things better labeled. PolyDup.c4d Dave
  25. Polygnome and PolyDup are really complimentary modeling tools and meant to go together (IMHO). Any thought to making PolyDup in two versions: standalone (essentially what you have now) and integrated into Polygnome as Ver 2.0. In the integrated version (Polygnome 2.0), the open ended geometry of PolyDup can be stored and accessed similar to what Polygnome can do. What I love about both programs is the ability to quickly build geometry. But what I really love about PolyDup is the ability to merge the open ended selections in various combinations of new "closed" geometry which could then be saved in Polygnome. If you integrate PolyDup into Polygnome, you could really create modeling libraries of infinite variety very quickly. Plus, you go from having two products to three: Polygnome 1.0, PolyDup, Polygnome 2.0 (or call it something completely different: PolyFactory, PolySupreme, Polywannacrakcer, whatever). Dave
×
×
  • Create New...