Cerbera

Your modelling axis is probably set to Object mode, or something other than 'selected'. Check this under Attributes / (Move Tool) / Modelling Axis.
 
CBR

Perhaps you are referring to vertex color tag, which, AFAIK, is the only way to apply colour to a mesh without using a texture in some way. Here's the magnificent Rick Barrett explaining that...
 
 
I have never tried converting an existing texture map to vertex colours myself, and not sure we can do that without recreating it manually. But you do want to make sure that the tag is in Polygon Points mode when you add colours so you avoid blockiness and an awkward falloff at the edges of your selections.
 
If you do assign colours manually, then you can at least use the eyedropper to pick colours directly from the material map.
 
CBR

This did open in R25 with the same error you got, which is confusing, as the points of the spline do 'appear' to be at exactly 0 on X.
If we are going to believe those figures, (as we surely must in the first instance) then the problem must be something else.
 
What is interesting is that in R25 it is fixable by selecting the centre points individually and then re-nailing them both to zero again via that same co-ords manager !
 
It is ALSO fixable by taking your existing, erroring mesh, making it editable, and then optimising it, leading me to believe that the lathe object in that version of S24 isn't welding the centreline points for some reason, and I think that is the cause of the error here. If that is the problem here, it has already been reported to Maxon.
 
CBR
 

That image is broken, but at least we know you are in R23 from the broken link !
 
Check here, in prefs, particularly the last one, sel. wireframe...
 

 
CBR

No, you'd control it with a Shader effector, which can accept layers. 
So, make sure the cloner is selected, then add a shader effector, which should automatically apply it. Then load a map into the shading tab of that effector, and specify which parameters it will affect in the Parameters tab. Once you have one shader established, changing it to a layer shader will create one with whatever was there within it.
 
CBR

VB fog only works with closed meshes in the way that you are trying to use it now, so that might be the issue, though we can't tell without the scene file.
 
I have to ask... is this the same sign language thing you were trying to make using VB the other day ?! Now you seem to have a poly object, as advised after your previous question on the same issue, but now the question might be why on earth would you put that under a Volume Builder setup now, and thereby lose all the advantages of a low poly SDS model now you've gone to the effort of making one ?!
 
CBR 

Where is your mouse at the time ? In Cinema that is very important. To delete polys, your mouse needs to be in the viewport and not the Object Manager when pressing the del key...
 
CBR

No no - this is not the way to do that.
It would be far better to make this with poly modelling, where a hand is a relative easy task.
 
I seriously suggest you abandon the current approach, which isn't obeying any of the rules of modelling, (No ngons under SDS for example, hence the errors), and just poly model it with quads and subdivision surfaces, following an easy tutorial like this one...
 
 
It doesn't matter that he is in Maya if you have basic grasp of Cinema's tools  - there really isn't anything more complicated than regular transforms and extrudes / insets etc. Obviously you would model your fingers clenched, so it would divert form the tut somewhat, but this will show where all the loops should be in a decent hand model.
 
This will provide you with a model that is about 100 times more flexible than one made with VB, and with considerably lees polys, and better quality ones at that ! It will also be far easier to UV unwrap and texture so is definitely the way to go here.
 
Hope that helps.
 
CBR

You can't drag them directly, but you can select multiple files using shift or control,  and then r-click any one and choose load and it should do them all...
 
Note: This doesn't work if the assets haven't been downloaded first (if they are not local), so that's a thing to remember, However download is also an option in that r-click menu that also applies to multiples, so no biggie...
 
CBR

No I disagree, that IS a bug, and I have already reported it 🙂
 
CBR

Yes. You can do it with point level animation keyframes, or indirectly with Pose Morph or several other methods.
Easiest way is just activate the button on the end of the timeline (the only one deactivated here).
 

 
CBR

You wouldn't. Cinema does not have any suitable native tools for doing this accurately. If you have Houdini I would try something in that, which does !
 
CBR

Oh dear - that is some hideous topology right there ! 🙂
 
If we separate out the objects we can see what is going on...
 

 
In the above the top and bottom meshes are fine (not great models, but not technically in an error state). We can sort the tongue by untriangulating it, and its Normals are fine.  Likewise the grey thing above that, presumably teeth - no issues there.
 
But the mesh in the middle is really like a perfect lesson in how not to model, and needs to go in the bin - it is in an error state, its Normals cannot be resolved because of multiple non-manifold edges, and it is not rescuable without deleting nearly all of its polys. As there is nothing about it worth preserving - I very much suggest you model this part again from scratch.
 
CBR

Just to confirm latest build of Octane should not cause this, and certainly doesn't in my case. 
You might try starting Cinema with ctrl + shift to load minimum display settings, but otherwise agree you should report this to maxon.
 
CBR

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...
 
CBR

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.
 
CBR
 

Oh, and I probably should say that still won't work initially ! 🙂 But it will if you put each tracer inside a connect ! (weld on)...
 

 
Lofts no likey live inputs !!
 
CBR

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...
 
CBR

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.
 
CBR

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.
 
CBR

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.
 
CBR

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.
 
CBR

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.
 
CBR

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
 
CBR

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.
 
CBR