Jump to content

Jaee

Registered Member
  • Posts

    309
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Jaee

  1. On 3/21/2024 at 10:03 AM, HappyPolygon said:

     

    Yes that. I miss named it

     

    Thank you!

    On 3/21/2024 at 1:31 PM, Havealot said:

    @Jaee Is your setup correct? I assume what you are trying to do is to use the simluted (low res) version of a mesh to deform a high res net. But your deformer is a child of the wrong object. 

    Oh Thank you!

  2. Hello, I would like to create a natural animation where the net reacts and sways when the ball hits it on the tennis court. I tried using Mesh Deformer to test the movement of the net, but only the box moves, not the net itself. Does anyone know how to fix this? Or is there a better method? As you can see in the scene file, the net is divided into three separate objects. I've attached the scene file.
    image.thumb.png.149975a90cda2031bafbfea1ff029c49.pngimage.png.7121eac76a0b121c69cf5a374fc8bf1e.png

    610947502_test01.c4d

  3. On 3/18/2024 at 10:44 AM, HappyPolygon said:

    Ah ! sorry, didn't see the scene file and assumed the deformed thing was the plane ...

    Umm... you've mixed two different simulation methods.
    The Sphere has a tag from the Bullet system while the Plane has a Collider tag from the newer system. You'll never see the sphere collide with the floor this way


    But the weird deformation wasn't attributed to that. You had the "Self Collisions" enabled.

    Thank you!

  4. On 3/17/2024 at 2:08 AM, HappyPolygon said:

    What exactly did you expect to happen ? I find completely normal this result


    When the ball falls to the ground, I want it to bounce back softly with a slight compression. However, I want to avoid the ball becoming severely distorted upon impact.
    image.png.50dd9628bf8d977015ae7cc3b59ab9e8.png

  5. Using the soft body bullet tag, I'm trying to make a sphere fall naturally onto a plane. However, when I press the play button, the sphere suddenly distorts into a strange shape. I used smaller objects to match the actual sizes of the objects. And I opted for using Bullet instead of soft body cloth tag because I needed to utilize the mograph selection. Could you please explain why this issue is occurring? I'll attach the scene file.
    image.thumb.png.906bdcda5ef59e7a70d72f0ea8936d34.pngimage.png.c4eaa151e7b42179a36d91af64f81475.png

    test.c4d

  6. In Cinema 4D, I'm trying to make objects appear and naturally fall onto a plane where a ball has bounced away using Rigid Body dynamics. However, when the objects generated by the Cloner aren't too large, they seem to pass through the plane and fall below without triggering dynamics properly. Do you know what might be the issue? Increasing the size of the cloned objects seems to make dynamics work better. I've tried adjusting settings like steps per frame and maximum solver iterations step in project settings, but it didn't help. I also experimented with substeps, iterations, smoothing iterations, and damping, but didn't work.

    image.png.38aabb25ee5115266d46bbea85a6cec6.png

  7. 30 minutes ago, Cerbera said:

    We only need to eliminate ngons (leaving quads and tris), which we do by checking for stray ones in points mode, and ctrl-sliding those into neighbouring points.

    We can let triangles pass here because SDS will turn them into quads for us.

     

    Here, I fixed yours...

     

    JAEE pickball wrap 01 fixed.c4d 356.99 kB · 0 downloads

     

    Only modelling purists like me would feel the need to chase all quads in the base mesh.

     

    CBR


    Thank you!

  8. 20 hours ago, Cerbera said:

    Ok, here's a closer look at stage 2 where we have just made our overlapping extrude editable... and then on the right, once we have added loops top and bottom and at 50%, which helps with SDS tightening later. The entire bottom  and top loops get scaled in on XZ (presuming Y is up) with subtly different amounts, and we use the Remove A / B option in Plane Cut to decapitate it flat at both ends...

     

    image.png.a1f3f40a8d42f15975d19931379a9fee.png image.thumb.png.ca34d0084add83a1e75b5d3f27679039.png

     

    Solving that to quads at the ends can be done a number of ways, all of which are quite hard to put into words, so I'll show you a closeup of what I did at the top for example... we don't actually have to be this tidy (will be covered in black wrap) but it's nice if we are...

     

    image.png.345557392613a396022e1e442f9d44dd.png

     

    This gives us the following SDS result, which is looking fairly decent, but of course remains cylindrical so far, so we need to sort that out next...

     

    image.png.aa2ff3eff84cdb0c2b29212e76d2eb96.png  image.png.c415c9ad14cf503bdbd60fbfa6bdded7.png

     

     

    CBR

     

     


    It's not easy to organize the points after cutting the top and bottom ends with a plane cut. Could you possibly help me with this? I'll attach the file I'm working on.

    model.c4d

  9. 2 hours ago, Cerbera said:

    Ok, here's a closer look at stage 2 where we have just made our overlapping extrude editable... and then on the right, once we have added loops top and bottom and at 50%, which helps with SDS tightening later. The entire bottom  and top loops get scaled in on XZ (presuming Y is up) with subtly different amounts, and we use the Remove A / B option in Plane Cut to decapitate it flat at both ends...

     

    image.png.a1f3f40a8d42f15975d19931379a9fee.png image.thumb.png.ca34d0084add83a1e75b5d3f27679039.png

     

    Solving that to quads at the ends can be done a number of ways, all of which are quite hard to put into words, so I'll show you a closeup of what I did at the top for example... we don't actually have to be this tidy (will be covered in black wrap) but it's nice if we are...

     

    image.png.345557392613a396022e1e442f9d44dd.png

     

    This gives us the following SDS result, which is looking fairly decent, but of course remains cylindrical so far, so we need to sort that out next...

     

    image.png.aa2ff3eff84cdb0c2b29212e76d2eb96.png  image.png.c415c9ad14cf503bdbd60fbfa6bdded7.png

     

     

    CBR

     

     


    I did it the way you suggested, but my modeling looks a bit off... After adjusting the parameters for the Helix as you mentioned, I made it editable and scaled it down a bit.

    image.png.9a4bbfb136efe56b33a0703704295c9e.pngimage.png.172180be75945cc00611275ba49c197e.png

     

    image.thumb.png.7734816a228c6c0d37e22bdf0e2eea73.png

  10. 14 hours ago, Cerbera said:

    If you need assistance at that level of detail you may be waiting a while I'm afraid - quite a heavy workload at the moment, and those sort of posts take hours to compose. However I have built it (to proof-of-concept level), and so can give you edited highlights now...

     

    There are about 4 principal stages, thusly...

     

    1. Helix spline in Extrude, but with very specific settings. In the helix the number of points is 8 x number of complete rotations. The end angle is -360 x number of rotations. Do 1 more spirals at each end than you need (I did 8 total), as you will be slicing this flat at both ends later. There should be zero spline interpolation, so that each full turn contains no more than 8 points in the resulting geometry.  The Extrude should also have no (depth) segments initially, but should be deep enough to overlap itself by about an 1/8th of the depth of each band.

     

    image.thumb.png.cdcf6bd5fb972227b24abf39a1b1cac5.png

     

    2. At this point we need to take an editable polygon copy of that via CStO, so we can edit and add loops to it. We need to add loops using Loop Cut (K,L)  to both top and bottom of the spiral, so that the border edges can be scaled in on XZ to fix the overlaps and tuck the wrap under itself nicely. A further loop can be added to define the narrow darker strip at the bottom of each wrap at this point.

     

    3. In the next group of steps we need to re-orient the model (but not its axis) by 22.5 degrees on H, top and tail it to flat, non-spiral borders at both ends using Plane Cut (K,J), solve the ends to quads and scale groups of edges apart to better match the elongated shape, before selecting the edges and bevelling them to gain additional support loops there, and harder creases on the corners.

     

    4. Last stage is FFDing that with a great many Y segments so you can match XZ curvature around the handle from top to bottom of it...

     

    I will pop back to add further detail as time permits this week...

     

    CBR


    Thank you. While you upload some screenshots of the detailed progress, I'll follow the instructions you provided above!
     

  11. 58 minutes ago, Cerbera said:

    Ah, so NOT a hexagon then  - an oblate octagon ! Useful to see it with no wrap so we can see where it angles in at the top.

     

    OK, working with the assumption that we do the holes with texturing (a lot more faff if we have to model those too) I will show you the main stages of how to make a slightly overlapping skewed helical band matching that profile.

     

    Essentially it'll start off with single band matching the profile, but with ends offset, cloned, unified, conformed and FFD'd into the right shape down its length.

     

    CBR

     

     


    Oh, thank you. I hadn't thought about using FFD to deform the shape. Could you possibly walk me through the modeling process with some screenshots, step by step?

  12. 12 minutes ago, Cerbera said:

    That's doable. I have done many such wraps before. Are you going to handle the tiny holes with textures or with modelling, and is that a hexagonal handle profile ?

     

    CBR


    The end of the handle is hexagonal. However, the middle part of the handle looks different from the end (I'll attach reference images). And the front and back of the handle are the same shape.

    It seems like using textures to handle the small holes would make modeling easier, what do you think? Also, a somewhat crucial point is that when the straps are wrapped around the handle, they should reflect the shape of the handle a bit.


    image.png.37fbdd846944652ba247da55280b4636.png

  13. On 2/26/2024 at 9:55 PM, Cerbera said:

    Yes, that theory holds water, unlike the balls themselves 😉

     

    image.png.ccebc443c95e8e1e5ab6f15a96858850.png

     

    So here, in this fully parametric setup, we have 2 cylinders, a smaller one doing the top 4 holes, and then a larger one providing the 2 rows of 8 underneath that.

    These are all variously offset radial cloners using a target effector on all 3 to make the cylinders point down Z at the centre of the sphere. Those 3 cloners are then given Y symmetry to get the other half, and dumped wholesale in a Connect where they can be used as operand B in a Boolean Set in 'A without B' mode.

     

    If we set cylinder and (standard type) sphere to atypically high segmentation (64 and 192 correspondingly in my example above) then we get perfect spherical representation and no visible faceting without further help.

     

    Live remeshing (ZRM mode), which is an option that can be deployed above all this, can actually have negative visual effect here, as it can compromise a) the look (no phong tag on remeshed objects by default) and b) inconsistency in edge distribution around the holes which can lead to visible artefacts you then have to work to fix. For those reasons I was getting cleaner results (though less toplogically sound) without remeshing. We mustn't forget that 99.9% of clients don't give 2 shits what the mesh looks like anyway, as long as it's fine in render...

     

    Lastly we can bevel the hole edges a suitably tiny amount if we need to, which I like to do on a CStO of the main setup using a selection tag (U,N / Select All, Store Selection) for additional realism; they may be sharp, but not infinitely so.

     

    Lastly we should consider that these balls are made out of weak, insubstantial plastic, and get twatted about, meaning their likelihood of remaining perfectly spherical is... low. So should we wish to show that too we can pop a crafty displacer (large scale perlin noise) or an FFD (for more directly art directable wonkiness) in with our parametric setup, or, as I would prefer, under the copy of it I made later (avoids constant remesh recalculation if you use it)...

     

    CBR


    Thank you!

  14. 17 hours ago, Cerbera said:

     

    First off you have to lose the thickness - fit circle can't acknowledge it for the purposes of reprojection.

    Then get another parametric sphere (VERY high segments and Reset PSR it to the same position (and scale to same size) as your ball to act as the reprojection surface. Then, select all the holes (poly mode, ctrl-A, then U,Q (outline selection) to grab all the hole borders at once) and chose the following options in fit circle...

     

    image.png.da7f2614ffac99d7378075813fe2bdb7.png

     

    That should take all your hole outlines, make them exact mathematical circles, even out the edge distribution, and reproject that onto the high poly standard sphere you temporarily put underneath, all in one easy move. 

     

    When happy, re add the thickness back.


    If I understand correctly, am I creating a single ball with holes, and then using both a high segmented sphere and the ball for the projection?
    image.png.19c86ab3e422f66ff1a5ab3ad043cae9.pngimage.thumb.png.313fa3cb3fa9ccbf4fe6ac4cc04a858f.png

  15. 1 hour ago, Cerbera said:

     

    Depends which version you have (profile doesn't say only 287 posts later ! 🙂 

     

    If you have a version that contains Fit Circle natively there's your answer, otherwise you need HB modelling bundle or an alternative points to circle plugin / script, but note that the only useful ones here are the ones that also re-project to surface (Fit to Circle / HBMB)... others won't help because they will force the geo flat.

     

    Using the boolean methodology the ONLY control you have over the shapes is the amount of segments you choose in the operands.

    My holes are almost flawlessly round because I kept those numbers high enough to preserve the roundness despite what the boole did later. There are so many edges on my holes that the new ones the boole adds can't affect the shape so there is no need for correction later.

     

     

    CBR


    I'm a bit confused, so could you briefly show me how to create something using 'Fit Circle'? I did it like this, but still have concave faces near the hole.

    image.thumb.png.85e13034a6b9f784986332a9a6264221.png
    image.thumb.png.06e9271db828005248a535c8b44d3b46.png

  16. 53 minutes ago, Cerbera said:

     

    Depends which version you have (profile doesn't say only 287 posts later!) 

     

    If you have a version that contains Fit Circle natively there's your answer, otherwise you need HB modelling bundle or an alternative points to circle plugin, but note that the only useful ones here are the ones that also reproject to surface (Fit to Circle / HBMB)... others won't help because they will force the geo flat.

     

     

    CBR


    I know 'fit to circle' can be used in topology work, but the file you sent uses boolean. How can I use 'fit to circle' in this context?

  17. 21 minutes ago, Cerbera said:

    Your topology density is way low. Increase segments on sphere to at least 192, and cylinders in boole to at least 64 segments and everything will be perfectly round.

     

    CBR


    Ah, I'm not talking about smoothing the sphere, but rather how to round the edges of the hole. Is there a way to achieve that?

  18. 8 minutes ago, Cerbera said:

     

    No. Boolean based geometry is not controllable at the polygon level whilst it is parametric.

    However the example topology shown is not great, and if used with SDS will produce a highly artefacted mesh which will be a long way from properly spherical, which is why we shouldn't use that method as I explained above...

     

    CBR


    However, if I use Boolean as you suggested for modeling, I can't make the perforated parts smooth. Is there a way to round the hole?

    image.png.63875769d037b18f19e3212640ab1935.png

  19. 13 hours ago, Cerbera said:

    Yes, that theory holds water, unlike the balls themselves 😉

     

    image.png.ccebc443c95e8e1e5ab6f15a96858850.png

     

    So here, in this fully parametric setup, we have 2 cylinders, a smaller one doing the top 4 holes, and then a larger one providing the 2 rows of 8 underneath that.

    These are all variously offset radial cloners using a target effector on all 3 to make the cylinders point down Z at the centre of the sphere. Those 3 cloners are then given Y symmetry to get the other half, and dumped wholesale in a Connect where they can be used as operand B in a Boolean Set in 'A without B' mode.

     

    If we set cylinder and (standard type) sphere to atypically high segmentation (64 and 192 correspondingly in my example above) then we get perfect spherical representation and no visible faceting without further help.

     

    Live remeshing (ZRM mode), which is an option that can be deployed above all this, can actually have negative visual effect here, as it can compromise a) the look (no phong tag on remeshed objects by default) and b) inconsistency in edge distribution around the holes which can lead to visible artefacts you then have to work to fix. For those reasons I was getting cleaner results (though less toplogically sound) without remeshing. We mustn't forget that 99.9% of clients don't give 2 shits what the mesh looks like anyway, as long as it's fine in render...

     

    Lastly we can bevel the hole edges a suitably tiny amount if we need to, which I like to do on a CStO of the main setup using a selection tag (U,N / Select All, Store Selection) for additional realism; they may be sharp, but not infinitely so.

     

    Lastly we should consider that these balls are made out of weak, insubstantial plastic, and get twatted about, meaning their likelihood of remaining perfectly spherical is... low. So should we wish to show that too we can pop a crafty displacer (large scale perlin noise) or an FFD (for more directly art directable wonkiness) in with our parametric setup, or, as I would prefer, under the copy of it I made later (avoids constant remesh recalculation if you use it)...

     

    CBR



    Thank you so much for the detailed explanation. However, I find it challenging to follow your instructions just with text. Would it be possible for you to attach screenshots for reference at each step? Thank you!

  20. 4 minutes ago, Hrvoje said:

    Few ways to do it. Pure modeling (make a section, maybe 1/8 of sphere and copy/clone) or use a cloner to make 40 cylinders and use that with boole or volumes.


    I'd like to create a clean mesh using topology techniques. Could you please provide how to do this?

×
×
  • Create New...

Copyright Core 4D © 2023 Powered by Invision Community