Cerbera

I was hoping the reset machine would pull out a laser at some point and blow away the tank :)

Don't turn on OpenGL stats - they are not telling you anything helpful. I just use the other HUD elements for total and selected points, edges, polys and ngons, which should do pretty much what you're asking. There is no functionality to identify triangles because they are not necessarily wrong in all contexts, but you can find them, and ngons using the Structure Manager - have a look at the various modes there, which are designed to highlight different types of polygons. We also have the mesh checker in modelling tools, which tests for and highlights a variety of additional geometry errors, and between those 2 things I don't find the need for any other tools when I'm on the hunt for rogue topology. That said I believe there are a couple of plugins that will display more comprehensive information in the HUD, but I've never needed them. CBR

PM sent... CBR

I was referring to this section of the roof where you have a bevelled corner, and then additional loops either side of them. But looking again, I see that those extra loops are probably there to support the lower frames, so in this instance that's OK presuming that you have a valid reason to make the supports and the roof a single object. I bet they're not a single object in real life ! If there is no reason for that, then it could be considered better technique to build the roof as a separate object, in which case you can use only the geometry and loops that it alone requires. Does that make sense ? CBR

Nice to have that confirmed - thanks for the correction :) CBR

Ah. There's the answer :) Maya has done its own thing with point order, and cinema doesn't know what to do with it. Obj is also a famously spurious format for preserving texture stuff. So going with my plan above is your best shot I reckon... just bind the one with the decent UV's to the rig. CBR

Visualize has a lot of things that are useful to architectural visualisation, though most of these come down to library objects and materials, the latter of which are mostly irrelevant to you if you are using Vray. I do know of several people who use prime + an external renderer to great effect. You can compare which features are in which versions in a lot of detail here. Lastly, I should say that MoGraph (broadcast / Studio versions only) is potentially very helpful in making anything that repeats, so fencing, specialist brickwork, flooring, roofing etc is all much faster if you have that. Also, Studio has the almighty hair system, compatible with Vray, that makes for excellent architectural grass. My apologies if that has complicated things further rather than made anything clearer ! :) CBR

Each vertex you create in Cinema has a specific number, and all your vertexes together have a specific point order, viewable in the structure menu (tab to the right of object manager). Each vertex (point) has a corresponding UV vertex (point), and this is why things go wrong if you UV a model, and then add new geometry to it, which changes that point order, and the UV map doesn't make sense any more until you redo it. Likewise, each polygon (face) has a corresponding UV polygon. I note with interest that you said you copied that mesh via export. I wonder if that's where it went wrong. If you had copied it by ctrl-dragging in the file I suspect (and it is only a suspicion) you wouldn't be getting this problem. CBR

Update: I've found an answer, though it's not ideal as there is some weighting to fix... but if you delete body 1, move body 2 to X=0 so it is lined up over the rig, you can bind the rig to body 2 by dropping it into the slot in the Bind tab of the character object. Might be faster than doing your UV's again. CBR

Well, I can confirm that your models are identical, so is the point order, and also that copying the UV tag across doesn't work in your case. Having done that I can check the UV map and it seems to be correct, but obviously isn't doing that in the viewport, and if we select a single island of UV polys we can see that actually the UV's from that one island are all over the model, which clearly isn't right. What is even more odd is that removing your skin and rig doesn't appear to make any difference. So, sorry to say I don't have a solution for this that isn't doing either rigging or UVing again, but it's not really my area of expertise, so hopefully somebody else has a plan you can try... CBR

That's weird - if the models are truly identical, and have the same point count and order, then just moving the UV tag should do it. That works for me in R19, but I don't have 16 installed any more so can't test it there. CBR

Having paid for the Adobe Creative Suite years and years ago, before it went subscription only, I still resolutely use PS CS3. Incredibly old now, but still does everything I want it to. I have GIMP on the other machine, but I don't like the way it does it a lot of things, so it doesn't get used as much. When I next feel like an upgrade in that department, I will almost certainly get Affinity Photo - nothing else out there gives you that much for that delightfully silly price :)

For a first proper model this is not bad at all. But understandably, it's not perfect either. 1. Whilst I am suitably impressed that you have properly modelled your floral grating, because it is a perfectly flat surface this was one occasion where it would have been more efficient (at least time-wise) to do it with a spline in an extrude. Not that what you've got isn't also fine, and a nicer job, although you could make the symmetry editable, and delete the points on the centerlines for optimum efficiency. This would also eliminate your remaining triangles there :) 2. It is hard to be sure without seeing what you were trying to match (if anything), but I suspect there are some extraneous bevels going on in the roof, and I'm not sure that stepping down of topology there is needed / a good idea. The aforementioned unnecessary bevelling would make a much nicer transition to the upper parts if it wasn't there. I suspect you applied a bevel deformer at some point, and bevelled all edges instead of making a selection tag for just the edges where bevelling was needed ? In either case, you seem to have used control loops AND bevelling where you should only require one or the other, not both. 3. You say nearly all quads ;) If you go that extra mile and make it 100% quads you'll sleep better, be a better modeller, and might be in the running for one of our legendary IQP Gold Stars or Cafe Badges... Looking forward to your next one. CBR

Yep, good stuff, and I particularly like what you've done with the duvet and the bedding. Would be nice to see some rucks in those rugs though - have never seen one of those that is 100% flat :) CBR

Excellent plan :) I'd like to see some Max style modelling tools in C4D, including but not limited to: Face and edge constraints, meaning that points stay on faces as they are moved. We have the slide tool, but not for face constraints. Set Flow - Takes selected point / edge / poly and matches surrounding curvature. Make Planar - takes any selection and makes planar on X, Y or Z or custom / interactive plane. Open SubDiv that works with UV's. Push modifier - moves faces edges or points along their individual (not averaged) normals. Shell - adds inner and / or outer thickness, with optional control loops ProBoolean - boole toole that only creates quads. Regularizer - like an enhanced points-to-circle script, but also equalizes edge distance, and works on multiple selections at once and respects face constraints. End Loop - automatically terminates / ends edge loops. Is that enough to be going on with - I have more ;) Anyway, thanks for listening... CBR

Good stuff. Looking very clean so far... CBR

Love it. Not one polygon more than necessary :) CBR

That would also be the sound of me of defecting to Modo, Houdini or Blender ;) I will never take part in Autodesk's monthly rental scam scheme. CBR

Do you know for sure it works with R16 ? You should contact the developer - they are best placed to advise you why it might not be working... CBR

I think you'll enjoy it when it gets there. Fox don't seem to know what a good thing they've got, so aren't promoting it properly yet, hence lack of rollout and rubbish reference availability - hopefully they'll sort that out and get it everywhere ! CBR

Oh excellent - they're as good as I hoped they'd be ;) Always nice when the wires are as quality as the render... IQP are impressed. We should award you a '4, no more' badge forthwith - what do you think, @VECTOR ? CBR

Nope - not a comedy, though it is much more self-aware and light-hearted than proper ST, and there are some jokes early on. For me it feels far more like 'real' Star trek (TNG, Voyager etc) than Discovery does !

This has been discussed at great length in various other threads, so I'll summarize... Houdini is amazing and outshines Cinema in pretty much all the VFX areas. And Houdini Indie is possibly the best value VFX software of all time. But for me at least, Cinema wins hands down for non-procedural modelling and general simplicity / ease-of-use, and for that reason I think the 2 apps work well together rather than being in direct competition. Sometimes you don't need bells and whistles and smoke and fire and you just want to model something, and Cinema remains where I'll be going for that :) CBR

Yeah, lovely renders there. I'd also like to see the wires :) CBR

Thanks AB. I have got the coons mesh and all the lab stuff, but haven't been using it here so far - but you're right - it could be ideal for this sort of thing. When I've nailed the form I may well go back and retopo it before doing the paneling, and will have a decent chance to try it then. CBR