Cerbera

I can sort of understand why that might happen, but it's not helpful behaviour; if the segments are the same in both cylinders they should align regardless of segmentation being even or not. That's what everyone'll expect to happen. Also a regression, as this doesn't happen in 2023.x.x.. anyway - I reported it, and thanks for sharing. CBR

No no, we shouldn't have to effectively disable phong (angle =>180) to avoid those issues, or resort to alternative phong modes for that matter... The reason they appear initially might be to do with using boolean operations / single object in the creation of the union between the 2 shapes, or because there are no loops along the lengths of the cylinders to clearly tell the phong tag what to do. But optimizing the mesh after collapsing a boole, and bevelling the intersections with a fair amount of segments should negate that and result in perfect smoothness everywhere with what I would describe as 'regular phong settings', thusly... So in summary, a few ways to get this done with no SDS. 1. Boole Union, then optimize and bevel intersection edges. 2. 45 degree cuts (line cut / angle snap) from centreline 3. Volume Builder Union using curve options to negate bevels 4. Any of the above + remesher stage (X + Y symmetry, hard edge selection etc) CBR

Technique is exactly the same as doing it with SDS except you need very high polycounts and bevels instead of control loops. CBR

Still there, albeit renamed and in slightly different place... CBR

Yep, neither of those can have additional windows. I guess it was thought that only Attributes and OM really needed that ability. I can't honestly say I have ever needed more than those 2 to have additional managers myself. CBR

Generated polys, as opposed to physical ones, such as the ones added by for example SDS, or sweeps / lathes / extrudes etc etc... CBR

The problem isn't motion blur not appearing - it's that it breaks the physics of the bullet simulation about half way through the cached animation, where half the cubes suddenly start flying in a straight line and not reacting to gravity. CBR

I can submit it for you if I can replicate the issue on my system. Quite a busy day for me today so wont' get to it til later, but will certainly have a look and try and recreate the issue when I get a minute... CBR

That is very odd behaviour, and especially curious that a) it only started a few days ago, and b) that it happens 70% of the time you undo. I can't imagine what could be going wrong there - if this was a problem intrinsic to 2024.2.0 we would have heard about thousands of cases of it it by now, and I'm pretty sure I haven't come across this before... Either way, it is going to be almost impossible to investigate unless we have a scene file that demonstrates the problem. Can you upload one, and more importantly have you done a support ticket to Maxon about this and sent them a problem scene ? - it is them who really need to see that happen... CBR

Well that's very odd. I don't know why that is, but concur it is the case, and I don't think I have seen it before, so have reported it. Have you done a support ticket yet ? CBR

Interesting. Does Houdini have a quad remesher that does also transfer UVs ?

Nope. But there is VAMP which can be used to transfer UVs between meshes of radically different points counts and orders. 2024.x.x includes a new evaluation method, Nearest Polygon, which is pretty effective. CBR

Yep, came here to say that, by which I also mean no 🙂 It has been discussed over the years. As I recall, about half the people want it like it is, and the other half are like you, wanting layouts saved with scene ! And the people who don't want it have good reasons - a lot of artists want to work with their own toolsets and layouts regardless of the job, although of course they could switch straight back with no effort. For example, say you send me a scene with your perfect viewport setup in it - well that's all very nice, but where the hell are the tools and plugin shortcuts I need to do the job ? Back in my custom / startup layout - that's where ! Perhaps there could be an option in prefs at some point in the future, to offer the choice and make everyone happy ! But at the moment, all layouts call from the layouts folder of the destination machine, so until that changes even if you include an .l4d in the file the user will have to manually put it in the correct place under user data. CBR

I get more than my fair share of crashes as I am usually working with betas, but that kinda makes my experience not typical. But I get occasional display crashes regardless of which version I use, which I mostly blame Windows / Nvidia for. In recent versions if the display driver falls over I usually get a chance to save the file, so that takes the curse off it somewhat... Last best, most stable, crash-free version for me was probably 2023.1.2, before everything got moved to the new core in 2024, and if I have to model something very quickly, where my space mouse isn't buggy, that's where I go back to for a largely crash free time and my fastest modellings... I guess that might be a reason why there are more crashes since the core shift - it was a fairly major change. All crash reports are valuable and looked at, and if you'd like a response you can always follow them up with a support ticket, where they may be able to offer more information / insight into what may be the problem. Do your crashes happen when you do a particular thing, or are they just general random weird ones ? And are they just display freezes, where menus still work, or does the whole app go down ? CBR

Dammit, I always forget that way 🙂 Yes, that is still a thing, and much less faff than mesh deformer ! CBR

Mesh deformer usually, using a low poly proxy cage you build around each link of your model... CBR

Correct. I presume that's why we have spline chamfer as well, but that is a node rather than a node operator, so don't think it can be dragged into OM like (geo) Chamfer can. CBR

You guess correctly. Only since introduction of new integrated sims system. CBR

If you use a simulation scene object rather than the default back-end one, then that, (together with all the forces and sim tags it contains) can be disabled globally using its green tick and keyframed via the enabled checkbox button under Basic... CBR

You should still have the various options, Tiny-Huge, but they are under Scene (previously called Project) Settings, under Display section. Or you can set it to custom to set both limits. CBR

Oh nice 🙂 He's got much better eyes than he used to have ! Great boots too ! And lovely lighting and SSS too... CBR

When I open that file, I see the hair is not linked to any geometry, despite the hair appearing on it, which means it must have been there at some point ! i don't know what caused it to not be there now, but if you drag the mesh into the link field it fixes your problem. CBR

Difficult to do anything but guess without scene file, but have you groomed the hair at all, which would require resetting its dynamics ? CBR

Hi Brandon Yeah we can do that. If you pop up here... ... you can double click the Instance icon to select all the instances in the scene in one go... Then you can right-click one of them, choose Add to New Layer, and then hide that layer from the object manager, or anywhere else should we need to... CBR

I would guess that the stacked booles and the various modes chosen therein, in combination with an incredibly small voxel size in the the VB are what is breaking that. I remain confused about why there is any boolean action needed here at all when using the volume builder, which viably replaces all of its functionality ! Here is what happens if you simply put the Cube, and Right and Left 'Big Circles' directly under the VB with no booles required... now your rotation segments have an actual effect on the smoothness.... After that, you can start to subtract other operands, also children of the VB, which is how I removed the small circle block on the left there, and could go on if so minded to complete the whole model using this sort of approach, which is how the Volume Builder workflow is meant to work... To get the result above my stack is simply this... Now, as you have seen, booleans can be used inside VBs but I have not yet found any circumstance where doing that helps the workflow more than confounding / obstructing it, or making it needlessly complex and even more calculation-full ! We could also talk about whether VB is the best approach for this kind of object - and I would say it is, IF the primary focus for the project is massive speed at the expense of polygon efficiency ! If you had a bit more time to throw at it you could model this via regular Sub-D modelling (no booles) quite easily and you'll get a nicer overall result, with about a 1/100th to 1/1000th of the polygons required to do it the VB way, and it would also be eminently more suitable for easy UVs and any subsequent animation, were that to be required... just a thought... Hope that helps CBR