Cerbera's post in UV Unwrapping was marked as the answer
That plate should be unwrapped into 2 islands, front and back. So...
1. Select the centreline edge loop, then get U,F to fill selection and get the front side polys. Store those to a tag.
2. Optionally repeat for other side into new tag.
3. Pop into BP UV edit, and d-click the first selection tag.
4. Go to whichever orthographic viewport lets you see the plate front on. In Projection tab do Frontal Projection to tear those polys off into a new UV island.
5. Hold 4 key and drag those polys off the UV canvas.
6. Repeat for the back side polys, but frontal project those from a back view.
7. Select all UV polys, go to relax tab, make sure your options are as follows, and do an ABF relax.
8. Go to UV packing tab, and do a boundary based autopack with 5% spacing.
If you did all that right your UV canvas and finished unwrapped UVs will look something like this...
and if it does, that's that done - all you have to do is export a UV mesh layer and line up your graphics in Photoshop etc...
Cerbera's post in Creating even geometry from an imported illustrator logo was marked as the answer
Hey Mia - welcome to the Core !
Yep, the extrude and spline object have the options we need to sort that out.
First up, in the caps settings of the Extrude, change it from ngon to delaunay (quad dominant).
Next pop to the spline, and increase the uniform points up to about double what you have now.
Optionally reduce the bevel depth slightly (like I have below), so things don't intersect.
...and then you should get this sort of thing...
...which is eminently suitable for clean rendering, and even quite severe deformations / animation.
Even if you do bevel to the max you should still get very even topology this way.
However it is impossible to get 100% regular quads this way. For that you need to manually model it from polys using the splines merely as a visual guide.
Cerbera's post in Bottle modeling was marked as the answer
Yep, that is generally fine, with the possible exception of the poles on the cap and the base where you have allowed the horrible triangles / complex poles. Oh, and the normals are wrong on the base and mid sections so you'll wanna reverse those.
Nicer solutions to the end sections would be either...
...which makes the pole much less complex and eliminates the Tris, or this one...
which is nicer still, being all the quads and NONE of the complex poles ! And, if you do change these don't forget to do the same to the insides too...
Cerbera's post in Voronoi fracture was marked as the answer
You can try turning the trigger velocity threshold down close to zero, which should have the effect of making all the pieces fall, but if you want the ones connected to the stand to remain then you just need another collider to knock out the pieces the car doesn't initially touch, which can be hidden from camera with a compositing tag.
Cerbera's post in Can I use C4D to stabilize a video shot ? If yes then how ? was marked as the answer
No. I can't think of any way to do that in Cinema. You need to do it in a video editor and even more ideally, in-camera if possible. The aim of Motion Tracker is only to follow existing motion as best it can in its input video and match the scene camera to whatever that movement is doing - it can't do anything to actually alter it in the source.
Cerbera's post in Changes to tool palette based on selection? was marked as the answer
Yes we can set that up ourselves, in any icon palette we create. It can work in several modes, document, where it changes based on selected component mode, or it can be tool based, or object-based. Manual explains all these options and how to set them up ! But the abbreviated answer is that you activate dynamic content by right clicking a palette and enabling it in the options therein.
Cerbera's post in box with tubes was marked as the answer
At least let's try and spell the keywords right hey ?! You mean a boole ?
Booleans are certainly the fastest and laziest way to get this done, but of course not the best or nicest in terms of topology, which may or may not be important to your future plans for the model...
I would start with the box, which is Boole Operand A. Boole Operand B (subtract) is a Connect object (weld off), under which you will place cylinders of around 24-36 sides until you have the holes cut out of the box.
Stage 1 should look something like this, and will be contingent on the tubes not touching each other within the volume of the cube.
The next stage of this plan is to make separate objects that will be the actual tubes that pass through the model. So, for each cylinder in the Connect object you should hold shift as you add a Tube primitive as a child of it. Then you can Reset PSR / Reset Transform to exactly match the transforms of the parent object, and alter their scale to be correct also, then drag that object out of the connect and into a new null called 'Tubes' or similar.
That won't be the ONLY way to do this, but I would argue it is among the quickest.
Cerbera's post in Unrealstic reflections (due to phong tag) when filleting added to a cube. was marked as the answer
Welcome to the Core 🙂
You're not showing us your phong settings, but that is likely to be the reason. Your angle threshold in the phong tag should be very low - perhaps less than 5 degrees.
Or you could control this better by not using fillets, but bevel deformer instead, which would let you break phong shading along bevels and mitres, giving you much more control.
Cerbera's post in Basic Rig not working ? was marked as the answer
I got it working.
I am not a rigging expert so don't take my advice as 100% correct, but...
a) hierarchy was wrong in that joints shouldn't be a child of the skin deformer.
b) don't know how you bound this, but your skin deformer did not have the cylinder in its 'include' list.
Fixing both of those things / doing a rebind worked for me.
Here I am checking the weights for that...
rigged tube CBR.c4d
Cerbera's post in Only show changed parameters in Attributes Manager was marked as the answer
Nope, AFAIK it doesn't have anything like that past the functionality in the Timeline where you can show only animated params...
Doesn't exit for Attributes Manager.
Cerbera's post in Studying a complex 3D model. was marked as the answer
My primary advice here is 'build it from the same parts as it is in the real world. So that top section is 4 separate parts, though you can start them all from the same model. You just need to patch that top section in the way that is most helpful to your plans, which is like this initially.
So, as you can see, most of this started with disc primitives, and expanded from there with regular poly tools and techniques.
SDS gets you the curves of course and the box corners / control loops get you the control of them...
Cerbera's post in Curving paper in two directions was marked as the answer
Forget the splines. Do it with a plane and a single bend deformer.
You need to say which version of Cinema you are working with for specific instructions on how to do that, but IME you should be able to get fairly close very quickly, and then refine from there...
Obviously, you will need to make sure your plane has enough even segmentation to bend nicely.
Here were my bend settings for the above in R25, but yours will invariably be different - more important is how you transform the bend deformer in relation to the object - it needs to be angled (and moved / scaled) in 2 directions off-planar to get the sort of result you need.
Also make sure you have keep length ticked or you'll get stretchy paper.
Cerbera's post in Can't source cause of marbling errors in volumetric light renders was marked as the answer
That is enough and I am fairly sure I know what that banding is. I think that's sample distance in visible light tab, which is currently set too high. the lower it goes the longer the render takes, but the less of that banding you get. Here's what it looks like in R25, but should be similar for you back in 17...
A value of 100 there is almost guaranteed to produce that effect. Should be more like 5 or 10 to start with !
I've always thought the default for that control was too high and normally reduce it by a factor of 10 in any scenes I make using volumetric light, especially when the thing that is passing through and interacting with the light is so thin and spidery...
Cerbera's post in How would you go about modeling this handbag? was marked as the answer
This is the sort of topology I think you could reasonably start with - I made this from 2 helix splines in a loft with Cloth SDS adding some thickness, then made that editable fairly early on, and tweaked the bag into a more organic shape with tools like Iron and soft selection. This sort of thing, being relatively even in poly distribution (albeit slightly denser at the top in the spiral where it needs to be) should provide a good basis for a) simulation tests and b) the actual bag initial shape if you discover that sims are the way to go here...
I would conduct those sim tests first at this very low poly level, but then again with more and more applied levels of subdivision (so they get included in the sim) until I found the one that a) responds best to sims, and b) gives the best sort of wrinkling on collapse...
Note: you will need to apply at least 2 levels of smooth subdivision to get the mesh dense enough to be able to form wrinkles, but the lower levels of subdiv may still be useful to get the initial deformation into a more relaxed organic shape.
In the few quick tests I had time for I found that softbody did better than cloth, but cloth wrinkled more convincingly if we only get the whole thing not to collapse ! In the end I went for a just a few frames of cloth sim to get the initial relax, and then binned off the tags, and went softbody after that with some success, but it was becoming clear that this would need A LOT of experimentation with sim and force settings to get right.
Another approach would be to just try and model it without any simulation, which is where the old magnet tool and smoothing deformer trick may come in helpful ! This is expounded upon in great detail by Chris Schmidt here...
I'm sure some of the techniques he goes over may help you here..
Cerbera's post in Real teeth material was marked as the answer
You still haven't said what quality of material you are trying to make - photo-real or something more stylised, but the basis to getting this to work on that model is to use a standard cylindrical projection in conjunction with a Vertical gradient containing the main colours you need.
I don't use Cycles so can't advise on the specifics, but that's the mapping type you probably need for this if you are tackling it most simply.
But if you find that isn't giving you enough flexibility, then you may need to go in and do a full UV unwrap, and proceed as I suggested originally, something that will be time consuming and tedious given the horribly triangulated and random state of the model.
The nicest textured result would ideally require you to retopo this first.
Cerbera's post in Rug Texture was marked as the answer
Are you using hair for this ? Cos if you're not, you should be ! 'Cause that sort of look is not possible with texture alone unless the camera is quite some distance from it...
Using Hair in cinema is simple when you know how, and what parameters you need, but if you don't know these things then I suggest you search / watch a tutorial or 2 on C4D hair before you start...
I would actually use 2 separate hair systems for this - the first to do the thicker, looped strands (lots of curl, not much else) and another one doing the really fine single strands...
Cerbera's post in How to even edges? was marked as the answer
You need the HB Modelling bundle, which has the Even distribution script that would sort this in a jiffy. But if you don't have that, then you are out of options I am afraid, and would need to go back to the loft and try and make it give you more even segmentation there.
TBH here you expose the greatest reason not to use Lofts and whatnot for the basis of organic poly models - very difficult to maintain the evenness all the way round a model unless you are using a generator that can accept the Uniform mode of its source splines as the segmentation, which of course a loft cannot...
Cerbera's post in Perfect sphere from cube with «Spherify» modifier? was marked as the answer
Ok, so just to clarify / sum up, to replicate the Blender workflow, we do this..
...which gives us this... a perfect sphere with no complex poles.
So Igor, do you agree that gives you everything you need there ?! 🙂
Cerbera's post in Modelling Ribbed Glass ? was marked as the answer
Single rib is certainly one way to go, but I think I'd go for doing it all in one hit on a single cylinder based model. Small selection hit in having to grab every other vertical loop in order to do the extrudes (for that's all they are, and Preserve groups off doesn't help across multiple vertical loops !), but that really didn't take me long...
Once I had done all the extrudes I thought a bit of Normal Scaling / Ironing was needed to soften it all up a little...
And then we let SDS do the remainder of the work for us, which of course would make this not a hard surface model at all !!
So many ways to skin a fish, but the take home message here is that there is no need to get the splines out ! Even if I needed a lot more definition in the ribs than that I'd still do it with polys and on a single mesh so I saved myself all the faffing about with radial alignment and Connects, which very much interfere with our SDS on / off shortcuts (Q) while modelling ! 😉
Cerbera's post in low-poly version of cylindrical object was marked as the answer
OK, here's some additionals...
1. The complex pole on your base is OK, and I can see you have solved most of it to radial kite quads, but it is still a complex pole there, so a nicer solve to quads would be something like this...
2. Even your 'This is how it should look' model has creasing problems around the area where the capsule joins the cylinder, caused by the elongated kite quads and irregular topology there... Cinema's tolerant SDS tries to save you there, but ultimately can't, because there are not enough radial loops in the base shapes to establish your curvature under it, or to allow deviation from them without being compromised.
3. Here is what I would call the 'most ideal' SDS answer here, in so far as we accept that the nicest render result is going to come from not using SDS at all and doing this with Hard Surface techniques instead. But regardless, here is what is possible using edge weighting.
But 2 disadvantages here - firstly this transition here... which is better than in your original, but still not perfection...
...and secondly, we have had to step up to SDS L4 or even 5 to get that tight a crease using edge weighting, and of course that rather defeats the point of trying to make it low poly, as does SDS in general !!
So in summary, and putting aside that you are using this for SDS modelling practice, this form is best achieved without SDS at all, and it should be of equal value to you to know when to use SDS or not as it is to practice doing it !
Hope that helps...
Cerbera's post in Avoiding the SDS pinching despite shrink-wrap... was marked as the answer
I'm not seeing any pinching on the shrink-wrapped middle one, specially as you are doing it in a group with the SDS and I would consider your final thickened result fully acceptable also... as you are looking at the SDS result (as opposed to isoparms) these numbers of polys are not problematic. The key to making these sort of things deformation free is based in the amount of radial segments you start with, so if you are unhappy with these, then next stage is to rebuild with double the radials.
But this is not a hard surface model, so it's going in the right department !