HappyPolygon

Use the Collision Deformer. Most examples use it to permanently deform an object in a plastic collision but you can also use it for your case to squeeze an object through a hole.

I don't think they make "too little money", they have a wide audience. The bad thing is they don't add any significant features in order to maintain that cost. Corel still remains the underdog of Adobe, is a bit expensive but does have some powerful tools that Affinity will most likely never develop (bitmap to vector tracer, intuitive workflow,.. ). Inkscape is just awful. The power balance in the 2D DCC landscape is very different from the 3D.

This is an embedded feature in C4D since R20 or even earlier and it's called Camera Morph https://help.maxon.net/c4d/en-us/#html/TMORPHCAM.html?Highlight=camera morph

I've noticed some light clipping (if the light source is not visible the light effect also disappears). Is this normal ? Like a lighting model limitation or a viewport memory management thing ? Is this prevalent also in the C4D version ?

I've tried to use some sci-fi greeble techniques in modeling in the past but I've failed miserably. Not because I didn't know how to model them but because my logic is strongly fighting my creative nature. For me all those exposed mechanical parts are just a fatal hazard for the object of interest. It's the sole purpose of why all manufacturers cover their products in nice smooth and slick protective exteriors. For me the most probable futuristic design is with the Star Trek and Orville side. And still there are details that I just have to ignore like the huge number of windows... I mean come on, they are not on a space cruse for vacation, space is full of debris traveling at hypersonic speeds, those windows no matter of what they are made of they would be full on scratches if not replaced every week... look at that exposed segment in front of the USS Voyager ! I have that ship as a miniature model since I was a kid and that exposure bothers me since then. (found a model in SketchFab) For me the only cases where mechanical parts should be visible is when the object of interest is damaged or when it has a prototype/experimental/non-product type of nature. Like for instance a portal to an other dimension built on a secret lab below ground level.

I think these kind of simulations are layered. 3-4 particle simulations computed and rendered separately and then composited into one final shot. Different simulation for the water. Different simulation for the foam. Different simulation for escaping particles due to wind.

I would use the compositing tag to exclude the environment light from the boat and use an other for the boat always pointing it from the same side (child).

Wouldn't that process make the whole node system slower ? With every change the graph should be re-interpreted and re-compile all the time.

There are only two new node, Spline Chamfer and OCIO transformation I'd love the idea of Maxon adopting an update plan like this: Main annual release - Introduce new technologies (simulation, rendering etc), format support (import, export, other iso), Generators/Modifiers/Fields/Tags, UI First semester update - Bug fixes, hardware compatibility fixes Mid-term update - expand color schemes, expand Asset Manager, expand Capsules pool, expand curve presets Second semester update - Bug fixes, new nodes, minor functionality expansion on some random old tools

I disagree with that. Not that a development plan cannot contain a nodal programming language ... but I don't think nodal systems, in general, are developed as a substitute for programming languages. It's not the same as Scratch, and definitely not as easy to edit and overview as you would with programming code. The only practical reason to move to a nodal system is to alleviate the cluttering of huge number of commands on menus as part of the main app. It also reduces the amount of icons to be designed for each command (optional) and the use of shortcut keys. Specifically for C4D the development of Scene Nodes can (given the proper implementation planning) significantly reduce long chains of hierarchies in the Object Manager. My suggestion to Maxon was to convert any SceneNodes involvement in a tag like Expresso. There is no need to have all those capsules affecting objects ,that in the core essence are just modifiers, run as a chain under the object. And have that object be part of generators like Volume Builder, Volume Mesher and a ReMesh... (Actually for me all those 3 always come together). It's a long chain. A scene can have too many objects. If all those need generators, effectors, modifies, fields ... It's too much to keep it clean and simple in just a vertical list like the OM even if you use layers. If every command and tool eventually turn in a node and have only geometry objects in the OM it will be so much pleasant to the eye (I don't have OCD). You need to procedurally edit an Object ? Just double-click on the SceneNode Tag, have a small window with the Node-editor pop-up and manage all your operations there. Currently I think the Node Editor is a bit slow when I need it to open and also the menu of available nodes when right-clicking on the blank canvas also lags a bit before opening, so maybe have the NodeSystem load to memory beforehand, always available as standard UI and not as an extension... Yes, there are a lot low-level nodes that can look like simple lines of code making the whole system look like a low-level coding language but I think that was a beginning they needed to make and build on that expanding it. That was also my critic towards SceneNodes when first released in R23. Too many, too low level, hard to acquire the insight on how to combine things to reach a desired result or even the insight on what are the limits of the system. My first suggestion to them was to make the system Turing-Complete, just like a programming language, but I soon realized that it was unnecessary. So I suggested they reworked the Python SDK to make it even more user friendly. My thought was that if they could re-design the Python Standard Library in a way to make it look like a new version specific to C4D like Py4D... And start coding right away in a very intuitive way like : create.Cloner(MyClonerName) MyClonerName.Mode(Radial) create.Cube(MyCubeName) MakeChild(MyCubeName,MyClonerName) or have a C4D Turtle Module for writing more intuitively recursive coding using variables, functions, conditions and loops the current syntax in MoSpline does not suppoprt... For example this: Premise: A Rules: A → - B F + A F A + F B - B → + A F - B F B - F A + results in this: I can't do that in C4D. If I input those rules in MoSpline I get this : It would be way cooler if all the low level nodes were just substituted by a single Python Node (and I think they can, it's just that i'm too lazy to learn the C4D SDK), but again, re-writing the Standard Python Library just to make C4D scripting more appealing to non-programmers is a gig task. What was my point ? Lost my train of thought a bit there ... Ah yes, It's a matter of balance between ease-of-use, management and overall capability of the system in development. It's just that C4D lacks the first one. I mean yeah... why have 20 nodes for manipulating a string of text and 30 for math when you can just use some lines of code in a single script... For me a node should translate to much more code than a simple module function call or a 5-line snippet. Or why don't they group some nodes in one like the "Modify Selection Node" which could contain the Remove Selection, Invert Selection, Grow Selection, Shrink Selection, and Store Selection nodes under one Mode list. You don't even have to type the names of these nodes in the search prompt, you just know you want to modify your selection, there is only one node for that. Or why build the Twist Deformer Node from a lot of other nodes and then make it an asset and not just hard-code the node ? Maybe this is the only way to prove the power of the system. If we can rebuild our tools using nodes then nodes can do anything, the system is Turing-Complete and the only limit is our users' imagination. Personally I would like to have the node system as a very big toolbox. Instead of opening a palette of available modifiers and see this where at least 5 are there since R6... and I don't even consider them modifiers like the rest, I prefer an iconless node list of them that includes the Solidify, Dual Mesh and Greeble. Nodes are not (and should not be) a programming language, just a 2-dimentional object editor.

Saw an interesting article about a controversy over AI generated art. Many people have expressed their disbelief about the capability of AI generating any worthy but as time passes things get more and more uncomfortable ... https://www.creativebloq.com/news/ai-art-wins-competition?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_content=computer-arts&utm_campaign=socialflow&utm_medium=social&fbclid=IwAR0M8lQ3q2OK1DYI6f1ayxhO-hnTUIc_kQg_lDFF4NShq_UXAGL5pOaQsps For anyone who didn't get the latest news, now DALL-E 2 has been released publicly for personal use and here's a link for a free online AI prompt image generator. https://huggingface.co/spaces/stabilityai/stable-diffusion

Shit. Forgot to send them my latest feature request list saved on my new laptop before leaving for the summer season with the old one. 😞 Now I'm compiling a new one on my old laptop... I guess R28 will be the same surprise as R26. I expect more capsules and nodes in R27 , and maybe some bridge between XPresso and SceneNodes. More Asset Library additions. Maybe some converter for native to RS materials and vise-versa. Maybe a discontinuation of the old native renderer because why use it when you have RS ? Some hair material improvements. Symmetry Tools Some crazy stuff with Fields Some additions to the Voronoi Fracture A Tracer that will connect objects based on their proximity. And a Terrain Generator with advanced filters like Wind Erosion, Peaks Enhancement, Water Flow maps etc... ok that's for R30. Cerbera how many have I guessed correctly ? 😆

I used Chrome. Send them a report using the bottom form

NVIDIA at SIGGRAPH 2022 announced the full open sourcing of Material Definition Language (MDL)—including the MDL Distiller and GLSL backend technologies—to further expand the MDL ecosystem. Building the world’s most accurate and scalable models for material and rendering simulation is a continuous effort, requiring flexibility and adaptability. MDL is NVIDIA’s vision for renderer algorithm-agnostic material definitions for material exchange. MDL unlocks material representations from current siloes, allowing them to traverse software ecosystems. It can be used to define complex, physically-accurate materials by reducing material complexity to boost performance.

Check the tool for yourself here http://imaginaire.cc/gaugan360/ This is my test: I love it. No more voxel cloud painting and countless hours of sky renderings with Vue for a background. Share your own tests below.

RV contains professional-grade media player technology that allows VFX and animation artists, and production teams to seamlessly view high-resolution images and sequences in real time and compare different versions while collaborating on projects. https://adsknews.autodesk.com/news/rv-open-source Aurora is an interactive path tracing renderer that leverages graphics processing unit (GPU) hardware ray tracing. As an interactive renderer, it supports rapid design iteration in a viewport. Aurora has a USD Hydra render delegate called HdAurora, which allows it to be used from a USD Hydra scene delegate within the USD ecosystem. Aurora relies on hardware accelerated raytracing; see the system requirements below. It aims to be functional across hardware vendors and operating systems. https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/engineering-hub-blog/aurora-a-real-time-path-tracing-renderer-that-enables-fast/ba-p/11322421

Some ideas to play with in the future

I'd love to participate in a challenge involving Text Animation (like cinematic title), but unfortunately I'm too busy at the time.

ΟΚ, I'd like to know a bit more about this level of modeling excellence.... Why is this step better ? To my eyes it doesn't really change anything to the overall shape and when I feel stingy this adds more polygons that are not necessary. other than that it only serves to please my OCD.

I'd like to see a "basic tools" comparison. For example how to use these generators in Houdini: Then how to add lights and what are the common features and what the differences and then the same with cameras The more "advanced" step is to show what Houdini provides for our most common object tags like these:

You are right. I opened R12 and found out that the tool I was using to project things was the Project Spline after all....

I'm really busy these days and had a lot of internet connection issues. I just fixed the internet connection.

Just throwing an idea, can't test it. What if you had a duplicate bottle model made it pow poly using the polygon reduction generator (to create a paper-like topology) scaled it a bit bigger than the original model placed it to enclose the original model use a soft-body on the new one set a negative inflation let it shrink on top of the original (might need some normal inversion) once shrunk make editable and delete the top to make a hole

My thoughts about this: Let's take a poll about who's willing to pay and what amount he/she is willing to pay. I want to subscribe but I don't want to do it via PayPal (I don't need it for anything else). Maybe a more versatile way to pay like having more options, preferably CreditCard, PayPal, Amazon Pay, Paysafecard... I wouldn't mind if the cost varied between those methods What about a friendly reminder for a donation in the form of a banner like Wikipedia's donations ?

That means it' not always useful and they should brink back the Project Mesh command...