All Activity

I don't think this is a priority issue, I would check the Scene Simulation Properties upping Substeps and/or Iterations but I run out of memory and crash C4D ... The Expresso setup is a smart way to attach things but we encounter very frequently this type of missbehavior. Try using Cloners with Polygon Selections on Object Mode to stitch objects in place... There was a way to connect any two points to create a spline in Xpresso but I can't remember how it's done... You could do it easier with two matricres from the Matrix object and connect them with the Tracer. Then use the Tracer as your rope. No need to pin the rope.

Hi all, I'm having an issue with the rope belt which I'm struggling to solve and I believe is down to a priorities issue. I have this tent model which I am inflating with dynamics. I have four clips which are attached to the tent via Xpresso (it was easier and more stable to attach them that way rather than making them rigid bodies) and then the guy ropes are attached to the clips with the rope belt. When I run the sim there is always a small gap (see screenshot). If I cache the rope simulation and offset the resulting animation by 1 frame, the end of the rope lines up perfectly, hence why I think it's a priorities thing. I've tried changing the priority numbers in the dynamics & rope tags, I tried the Shift Priorities tag and I've tried reording the object manager evey which way but nothing seems to correct it. Does anyone know if I'm doing something wrong? TentSim.c4d

I think this video will should help you a lot...

Hey Mash, thanks for the idea. I was eventually able to solve this issue by manually arranging all the pivots of the single elements and animating a radial cloner. Anyway, how was your fracture object idea? Like putting all elements in a fracture and animate it with a plain effector or something? Thanks WhatsApp Video 2025-05-29 at 15.15.59.mp4

This is what the fracture object (not voronoi) is for. it allows you to custom make each mograph element

Hello everyone! I'm trying to animate the jewel you see attached to make it expand and contract back to its original shape. I'm attaching another sample to make you understand better what I need to do. That one was easy to setup since the entire jewel is made by one single module cloned with a radial cloner whose radius is animated. The one I need to animate is tricky tho because it is made by all different pieces and the radial cloner is not working properly. Any idea or tip to make it work? Thank you in advance

I took just a part of the mesh due to scene being so heavy and used volume as emission type. This helped a lot in resolving the "streaks'. I would still go with proxies for this

Youre creating a volumetric system which is only a single voxel thick. This means when your diagonal curve ceiling leaves one voxel and enters another, youre going to have a gap as some polys are too far away from both voxels to be considered as belonging to them. Its the 3D version of having an aliasing diagonal line Honestly, you're asking a lot from the system trying to burn down an entire intricate interior. You either need to bump up the thickness/emission of the burning areas so the lines get filled in; use a higher res voxel mesh or just find another way of doing this. My instinct here would be to start off with a base of simple animated burning elements with alphas, then comp in extra smoke or more detailed areas as needed.

Hi Hrvoje, i'm sorry, the scene is already reduced as much as I could... the working scene has a long timeline full of stuff... I suggest you just cut the mesh & keep the ceiling part to see if you can have better outcome. I though maybe if the smoke would go downward to mask the banding, but couldn't figure out how to do that O_o

@Julien Scene is very heavy, can you possibly reduce it and reupload? I can barely navigate and see the issue, however, it looks like you are not happy with emission type? Either that or use a proxy object for emission

Oooh, I have all Vue packages downloaded since it went free (I posted question here about tree animations back then and someone pointed me on that) but it is on my to do list since then. I am on C4D 2024 because with 2025 + Vray 7 I experienced many crashes so that´s fine with me 🙂

I'm strongly recommending taking a look at Vue now that it's free. Sunning vegetation and gorgeous skies. It has it's own render engine (you can still switch to Standard/Physical but have to tweak some ISO/Gamma settings I think) and since you're specialized in Archviz it might suit you for outdoor renders. The downside is that you have to use C4D 2024 or older. I've asked Maxon to consider collaborating for a supported bridge for the newest versions.

Thanks! I am more or less OK with V-ray, even though sometimes I do feel like I am torturing myslef and should switch to 3ds max and corona for archviz. I couldn´t get myself to do that yet. I´ve been using C4D standard material for some minor scene work, which made me think that maybe I am overlooking some features and potential in the C4D renderer. I mean, I do vaguely remember working with C4D GI etc.. But back then I really didn´t know what am I doing.

It depends what you're looking for. Standard and physical can give you absolutely lightning fast renders, on a modern machine you can be doing 2-3 seconds per frame. On condition that you don't care about GI, AO, motion blur, DOF, frosted glass or mirrors etc. For simple illustrative work they are rock solid and fast. They're also pretty good with the sketch and toon system, though it is showing its age and they did ruin it a while back with the AA overhaul. Similarly the hair can look really nice, so long as you're not fussed about accurate GI etc. If you want real world modern lighting though, forget about it, theyre slow and have way too many drawbacks once you start flipping on all the switches. Personally I use octane for my daily work. Its absurdly fast, gives great lighting control and I can have all the bells and whistles enabled, I know the dof will be beautiful every time, the motion blur will be fine. The key thing is that its very quick to develop a look with its realtime feedback. That said, its terrible for NPR and it crashes like a dick multiple times a day. I feel like the 3ds max users we used to mock back in the day. Regarding architectural work, it isn't terrible, many of us used it fine for years on end, but I'd never pick t for that these days. The GI is slow, grainy and flicker ridden. Half our work was trying to fake GI so we could avoid using it.

OK, thanks for pointing those out! Many years ago when I was trying to render my first projects, I used Physical, but then, V-ray gave better results in terms of realism. So I kind of never looked back. So comparing to other renderers (Redshift, Corona, Vray) C4D physical renderer can offer same results in terms of realism? But I do archviz only.. so I don´t know does that plays a role.

Anyone still on R20, or without proper GPU, is confined to using standard or physical. I am in that boat.

Anyone who doesn't know how to use Redshift. (like me) Anyone who doesn't want (have money) to use an other renderer. It's easier (and technically better) to learn about renderer capabilities and how they work starting from Standard and then Physical Renderer. The documentation has some very interesting information. Compatibility Many plugins were offering shaders for those systems still useful. Redshift doesn't provide the full extend of features the Sketch & Toon does. You can render volumes with RS but what if you need a sky full of clouds ? Physical Sky is faster and more suitable for exterior renders. There's a chance Pyroclusters might be faster than Pyro in some cases. For some users it might be easier to corelate color and other particle properties easier with Pyroclusters rather particle modifiers. There are many nuances with RedShift nodal workflow as it might require a certain level of knowledge to achieve some effects with nodes that might be just a click with Physical. Watch this channel for examples. Physical has many post effects not available in Redshift (although not of high quality). RedShift doesn't seem to support Stereoscopic renders (Red-Blue/Red Green)

This is more less a question just of a curiosity. I use V-ray and I don´t use Redsift or C4D standard or physical renderer, but I was thinking now when there is Redshift in C4D, are there any advantages of working in standard or physical renderer and materials system? Does anyone stil uses those, or are there any particular tasks where those can be still useful?

Hej there, for a theater show with 24 beamers I need to fire up the room, so i have this setup, but the pyro sim makes these very bad lines. Subdividing the mesh won't change anything, its the voxel that goes down step by step over the roof curve, and I can't make it higher res its a big volume... Just trying my luck here if anyone knows what could be done to avoid these lines... like if there is some averaging or falloff somewhere... Thanks ! C4D scene here : http://julienbach.de/files/Act7_Baron02_reduced.c4d

Volume vectors Tornado fun: ) Tornado_vectors.c4d

If you are willing to point to forum that would be greatly appreciated. I don't see why this should anger Maxon people? We have members who are frequent here and help out yet they work for Maxon You could share your multi year project insight and feedback? That sounds interesting

To tighten it you need to put more thickness to the sweep. Ideally if the Sweep and the thickness of the rope have exactly the same value there shouldn't be any gaps between the knots. And the Field Force would also tighten the shape.

Been playing around with it a bit, it's not perfect, and not super fast to calculate, but getting somewhere I think. Slightly different approach. Still playing but thought I would share and see if anyone else was interested in playing around! As a side note, the dynamics for this is cached. All you have to do it swap out the dynamics tags for your own geometry shape, and create a spline with "Bezier - Uniform distribution" that fits inside the geometry. Up the point count to whatever you need, for this one I used 200, but it could be larger or smaller depending on the tightness of coils you want. Then drop the spline into the tracer and let it sim out. TEST COIL_Differential Growth.c4d

Thank you for these 2 solutions you have provided @HappyPolygon !!! I tried both of the solutions you provided, however, I wasn't sure how to have the matrix object control the flattened tracer spline? So I tried the Rope dynamics, which works better and seems ok for less dense filled objects, and is interesting, but feels a bit different in the way the spline curves look and coil. Ideally I would want it packed more tightly like the image above. I am going to try and give the solution that @Hrvoje kindly provided as well and see if I can get something....If I do I'll let you know what I come up with! Thanks again everyone!

Yeah, it's somewhat quiet around here. Personally, my Multi-year-magnum-opus-project has entered postproduction, so all my time and learning goes into AfterEffects and other 2D-tools. Also, C4D as a product has very much stabilized; there was a time of great bitching and whining around the dreaded 'rewrite', but things have gotten much calmer, releases come steady, predictable and - a little boring? It's good the drama is gone, but it also was somewhat lively 🙂 Lastly, Maxon really opened a lot of channels and formats, where users go and take their discussions with them. Also good! Let users prosper in their natural habitats, be it youtube, insta or whatever. Me, though, I am a forums guy, I like it orderly and I like posts made from real sentences 🙂 So, what to do about the calm waters we're in now? A weekly discussion topic? Little contests? Feature wishes?