Jump to content

noseman

Maxon
  • Posts

    120
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Posts posted by noseman

  1. YES! Your example shows one of the huge advantages of this method.

    I was thinking of doing a follow-up video, showing this alternative technique...

    I will be very happy to credit you if you wish... let me know if there's any specific information you'd like me to mention. Name, website, twitter and so on...

  2. Hey everyone, check out my Youtube channel where I have the download link for a Free "Edge to Spline" plugin. It's Open source, procedural, do-whatever-you-want with it. The code is open, so use it for educational purposes as well. Modify it, and make more super plugins. Please don't sell it.
    [Disclaimer. I have no responsibility, expressed or implied as far as the plugin is concerned. Use it as-is. Whatever happens, it's your fault. By downloading it, you agree to this... and owe me a grilled steak... medium rare please]
    Share, Like, Subscribe.

     

     

     

     

    edgeToSpline.zip

  3. 11 hours ago, Didar said:

    I thought volumes are very inefficient and can slow down everything. I thought we only create a proper mesh with volumes and then we turn volume off and only use the result mesh. so can we simply use them with low voxels and everything? and is it comparable to meatball??

    Why would you think they are inefficient? And you don't need to use metaballs.

    As for the rest, I don't really understand what the problem is. Can you post an example of what you want to achieve?

  4. Let me throw in my couple of cents to this.

    Planning and lot's of work are key elements. If you have 2 different objects and want to morph them into each other, you first need to define what the boundaries of the effect will be. For example, in the Transformers movies, the transformations are totally unrealistic in real life. Most of the stuff just scales down and disappears and other stuff scales up and appears. Very few objects morph into each other.

    In your case, you would need either to make both objects using the same point count, or use a similar method for both. For example, if you use Volume and noises to build both Spheres, then "morphing" from one volume to another is not difficult. Here's a tutorial:

    https://www.cineversity.com/vidplaylist/morphing_objects_with_volumes_fields/morphing_objects_with_volumes_fields_creating_complimentary_meshes

     

    Overall, you first need to define what you want to do, then identify the potential technical difficulties, then set the acceptable type of effect (maybe you can just use masks in compositing, and a flare to hide the transition) and THEN build it to accommodate the above.

  5. yes, this produces the same result. I did the whole thing in R21, which defaults to Remapping OFF for Volume Fields.

    The main thing is to understand:

    1. what the data is:

    SDFs have negative non-normalized distance values inside the volume.

    2. How to use the data:

    I want to create a "3D mask" (Field) from 0-1, where 1 is the selection I'm going to apply the Smoothing on.

    So I want the negative values to become 1 and the positive 0 (no selection). Therefore, first of all I need to negate the Volume Value, so that negative becomes positive. Then I need to apply "contrast" by compressing the distance values to 1 (range mapper is a "data contraster" and compresses the value gradient).

    You can do the same thing using remapping, or many other ways...

  6. so, the only viable method I found, if for you to follow this tutorial, and transfer the Dynamics to a hierarchy of objects, after you bake the mograph Cloner to a mograph Cache tag.

    https://lesterbanks.com/2015/03/bake-mograph-animations-to-objects-using-xpresso/

    After you have successfully transferred the Dynamics to the Objects, hide the Cloner, go to the last frame, apply your material to the Parent Null using a Flat Projection, and when you're happy, from the Tags menu, do a "Copy Tag to children"

    This will apply the material at THAT frame, at THAT position for all tiles. When you scrub back, you'll see that the texture is stuck on each tile.

    I have used another method to make the activation of the Dynamics similar to the original emitter.

    Project link attached:

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/pn6n8ow1cuqrwsl/Tiles 01A.c4d?dl=0

  7. First of all, you don't have C4D 16 studio 🙂

    There are technical limitations on why you can't "just" make them editable, and the most important one, is that the objects are being generated while the animation is playing. You can't do that with plain objects. An object can't just be generated while the scene is evaluating.

    With the cloner, you're not generating any objects, as the object count in your Object Manager is not changing.

    Let me take a look at the GSG video, and I'll see if there's an alternative...

     

×
×
  • Create New...

Copyright Core 4D © 2023 Powered by Invision Community