Jump to content


Community Staff
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Cerbera

  1. Oh I dunno, I reckon a fair few people miss that, hidden down the bottom there... CBR
  2. I hope so. Or maybe the marble will go Red to match ?!!! (All comparisons to the Eye of Sauron not withstanding).
  3. As cubes with M's in them go, that's quite a sexy (by which I mean geometrically rewarding) one, but I'll miss the little blue glass swish-doodle - I really liked that ! CBR
  4. May I temporarily divert you and this thread with 2 (hopefully) very quick easy questions about that while you're here ? 1. Am I right in thinking symmetry doesn't apply in the stack yet ? 2. Is it possible to just paint in a seletcion of polys to use in that stack ? Many thanks CBR
  5. Modelling it properly needn't be so tricky either. Here's one way to get a decent start on that... That's the basics, but you can do additional steps to further spherify, smooth / prepare for SDS etc. CBR
  6. Not by using the atom array object, and not in Version 19, no. I mean you could use a horrible boolean operation, but that will produce a typically disgraceful mesh, fully prone to future modelling problems. If you had R21+ you could just put the atom array in a volume builder, but that isn't in R19. So without that, if you do want the spheres as well, or need it all welded nicely and topologically decent, you'd have to model it properly, although you could still use the cloner and various other helpers along the way. More positive news on hiding the spheres though. If
  7. There we go ! Someone else who appreciates the brilliance of that ! lols CBR
  8. Quite disappointing to hear your Ryzen 9 isn't coping with 20,000 things - are the things especially complicated ? Also quite disappointing that what I was going to recommend as the way round this - hiding clones rather than scaling them also doesn't persist / work when cloner is made editable, either with C or CStO. I was really hoping that wouldn't generate the hidden clones, but alas, it does. Would also like to know if there a way around this, because I can't find one so far... CBR
  9. @FLima Please don't take anything I say as a personal attack on your opinion, or as trivialising your frustrations - I do understand them, and share them in some cases (symmetry most notably) ! I too have paid an astonishing amount of money for Cinema over the years, and I am not immune to the frustration caused by things not working as they should, or not being addressed until the long(er) term. But I just see so many people being negative on release day, I just want to be one of the people pointing out the positive things that there are, and like I said above, I find enough of those on an on
  10. Yep, I'd have to second that. They really do listen, and there's a hell of a lot of people shouting for their attention, so I reckon they do quite well to listen as much as they do ! CBR
  11. Well no, not really ! As primarily a traditional modeller, Cinema already does nearly everything I want it to (some notable exceptions remain, but most have adequate workarounds and I am quite patient), and continues to look better while it's doing it with every version ! Broadly speaking, they fixed modelling around R18, Nodal Materials arrived, Volume building got integrated, they fixed UVs more recently, Fields got introduced (which was fundamentally massive for me) and I have never hated Physical Render as much as everyone else seems to ! My renders in that don't take all night, and with a
  12. I think this is actually a very helpful and promising update. Very exciting future modelling things going on over in Scene Manager (Modifier Stack anyone?). Lovely new Viewport (Direct X at last) so no more jaggy poly lines, all the brilliant scatter and placement tools, (which people have been wanting for a while), the live dynamics of which are massively helpful, and rather a lot of very welcome smaller changes, fixes and improvements to existing every day / quality-of-life stuff. Personally, I like it. CBR
  13. The file doesn't help me because I don't have Vray, but helpful that it is there for the people that do. Now I look again at the reference photo (which I am still struggling to see clearly because of its low resolution ) perhaps that isn't a noise based thing after all; today it looked more like a sort of parquet flooring type material to me ! If that is the case, and you do need just these narrow strips of it, then a photo-based texture is almost certainly going to be the way to go, and there are literally hundreds of such textures available with a search for parquet floor texture
  14. We can't see enough of your screen in those shots to see what the issue could be. And you didn't say if this affects all files, or just this one, or if it persists after a restart. So, not a lot to go on there. If it is in the file, pls upload it so we can investigate. CBR
  15. Oh no, you don't wanna start with it flat. I modelled it in finished pose, knowing it would be a lot easier to a) flatten that later and b) to get the connections (and ONLY) the connections and 90 degree angles I wanted that way. CBR
  16. We can't help can we - we don't have your scene file ! Pls upload it. CBR
  17. Yes that is capital annoying that it does that isn't it ? Not what we'd expect or hope for. So that'll be a 'no' in all those versions if this doesn't do it. But we don't give up so easily. Ok, next thing to try - key frame gravity so it starts at 0, and holds that right til 999, then pings to -9.81 at frame 1000. CBR
  18. Display menu (of that viewport specifically) / Lines. For future reference, we have a perfectly good image upload system here on the Core, so let's use that rather than external links pls... CBR
  19. Please Read How to Post on the Core so that we can avoid you constantly posting stuff in the wrong place. Moved to Scripts. CBR
  20. Ok, so your graphics card is decent, but viewport geo-level displacement is calculated on CPU, so that is not the important factor here; CPU single core speed is. And possibly memory too, because if you run out of that while it calculates, Cinema will also freeze. But we don't know if that is the reason because we still haven't seen the topology density of your base mesh or any actual polygon numbers, so quoting SDS levels at us is fairly meaningless without that info ! You need to either upload the scene file to dropbox etc and link it here, or show us a wireframe screengrab that
  21. You are probably adjusting that SDS level too high for your machine to reasonably handle. You don't list your specs in your profile, and we haven't seen the actual mesh you are working with so impossible to tell... CBR


We are Cinema 4D Community of dedicated, friendly and passionate artists, hobbyists and developers. Feel free to join us to share your knowledge, your art and anything that might help Community to grow and become a better place for everyone. We are providing guidance, free plugins and files, feedback and various discounts for our Contributors and much more. :cowboypistol:




  • Create New...

Copyright Core 4D © 2021 Powered by Invision Community