contrafibbularities

Why would a company charge the ridiculous amount of 175 pounds for that?

Yes, it seems so, at least Rocketlasso did mention that somewhere at the beginning of his "New in R25" video. His plugins already are compatible with R25. I haven't upgraded since R18, but I did try to stay in the loop, more or less. This seems like the weakest release in Maxon history. Also, the 3D Motion presentation (I only watched some of )the beginning of it) seemed oddly unprofessional, like they couldn't even spare the money for decent mics... So C4D now has a Blender skin (very convenient should I decide to go back to Cinema some day), the CV ArtSmart tools are no longer a plugin but have turned into a spline importer, and the Capsule received a massive update because they couldn't come up with yet more awesome Bevel options for MoText this year? 🙂 Even if, for example, you find the (at this point completely unnecessary) changes to the UI useful and an improvement, I am wondering whether this, or any of the other new "features" justifies the price of an annual or monthly subscription, let alone the upgrade price for a perpetual licence. From a quick look at some other forums it seems Maxon is pretty much getting creamed for this release, and I guess they deserve it, too. Someone said that it would take another 3 to 4 years until the development with respect to Scene Nodes etc. would be completed. Considering the development speed at Maxon over the past 10 years or so, I think that is not an unrealistic estimate. Once again this year, it looks like they're declaring anything as a "feature" to bridge the years until the final, game-changing uber version will be unleashed on mankind and shake the very foundation of the 3D world. Few enough of us lived to see the day the core finally started getting rewritten. I am wondering how Maxon can afford to take that long. In this business, time is not your friend. If you take a look at how other applications have been progressing in all that time Maxon mostly delivered empty promises and sketchy releases, it'll be interesting to see how this will turn out for them, and if anyone will still care when that time finally comes. In any case, as things are now, I am not surprised that even people like Toby Pitman, the author of MILG11, which still is the best SDS training ever made, have recently made a complete switch to Blender, or went from publishing C4D tutorials on YouTube to releasing Blender videos instead, or are doing at least a mixture of both now. The writing seems to be all over the wall. To be honest, I'm a bit sad about how Cinema has turned out since R18, which I still like a lot. On the other hand, I don't feel like I made a bad decsion when I switched to Blender at the end of April this year. Cheers, Wolf3D

I had similar problems. I could log in, but was unable to download my installers. Try different browsers. Eventually, I could download the installers using Microsoft Edge. Not being able to log in at all might be a different problem though. If a different browser doesn't work, contact Maxon support. They should be able to help. I was told they would even set up and e-m-ail me a download link for my installers, if necessary. @DaveTwo: I think this will be your last chance to get your installers. The announcement on the log-in page does sound like you won't be able to get them again after September 30. And who knows if it will be possible to get those installers from Maxon support after that. Cheers, Wolf3D

This might be useful information for those of you still working with older versions of Cinema. It seems that on November 1, 2021 the Maxon e-portfolio will be closed permanently, see the enclosed screenshot. It is recommended to save your installers/serial numbers prior to that date. Cheers, Wolf3D

Unfortunately, even if I wanted to, I just don't have the time to work with both programs. Right now I want to focus on Blender in order to learn as much as I can as soon as I can. Also, re C4D tutorials: more and more they're a waste of time for me anyway. The audience is shrinking by the minute. Even here in the forum there's hardly any real discussions/questions regarding modeling anymore. R18 is becoming outdated, too. Before too long, no one's going to want to see those videos anymore anyway. If you don't really want to take a closer look at Blender, then don't waste your time. I tend to test the interface and the look and feel of programs, too, but without making an effort to dive a little deeper into it and learn how it works, it's only so helpful. Things like the interface are not that important to me anyway. A long time ago I tried Hexagon, TrueSpace, and Modo, among others. I actually liked Hexagon and Modo, but because of stability issues it was impossible for me to work with them. TrueSpace was even worse. It was really frustrating. Stability, pricing, user base, available learning resources, development of the software, third party plugins to compensate for the weaknesses of a software package are what's important to me. What isn't is what brand name is printed on the package or whether or not the GUI of software X is prettier than that of software Y. There's arrogance both in the Blender and C4D community (fortunately, not in this forum). Generally, there's too much talk everyhwere about this program vs. that program. Why do people get so worked up about that? Software is a tool, and a means to an end, and not a religion. I don't get all those discussions out there, they're pointless and a waste of time. A lot of us are using more than one application as it is, and we all have our reasons why we do that, or why we switch from one package to another. At the end of the day it's all about what you want to do, what you can afford, what you're willing to spend, it's about your work, it's about having fun. Even Blender is not completely free if you're serious about learning it or making things work for you. You learn much faster if invest some money in training, and make your work more efficient and versatile if you invest some more money in third party plugins. What I find a big turn-off in Blender actually is Blender tutorials. That's one thing that kept me from taking a closer look at Blender for a while. People speed-talking and throwing 20 abstract shortcust in your face in under 10 seconds and calling it a tutorial. Sometimes I think it is not so much the fact that Blender is indeed different and more complicated to learn than other 3D applications, but rather the way a lot of people teach Blender that makes it a lot harder for the average Joe to learn it. Especially if you're completely new to 3D. By comparison, C4D tutorials, both free and commercial, tend to be a lot better and easier to understand. I totally agree with Igor. I am taking a different approach to learning Blender, too, that is not necessarily based on how other people do it. Recently I saw a video on YouTube by a guy who uses it in a completely different way that is almost entirely based on pie menues instead of shortcuts. He completely changed Blender with a pie menu add-on to adjust it to his needs. And like Igor I am piecing things together from a ton of educational sources, trying to combine things to create my own workflow in Blender. Sure, that isn't super easy or super fast, but I too think it'll pay off in the long run. How you go about learning something is key to learning it. Having a background and some experience helps a lot because you can go about it in a different way and also avoid mistakes that I made when I first started learning 3D. Cheers, Wolf3D

I started switching to Blender about two months ago. While I don't find it easy to learn, it is - which actually was a big surprise to me - a lot more fun than I expected. One of the reasons I hesitated for years to give it a try is, like some of the others already said, because I'm used to C4D and learning something new always takes time and a lot of effort. I have to agree with what HVANDERWEGEN said. Yes, every software is different. For the most part, whether or not you'll learn it depends on your willingness to learn it. Blender is overwhelming at first because in many ways it is quite different from what I am used to. Despite the learning curve I have a good feeling about it though. I also agree that the 2.9 interface isn't as bad as some people make it out to be. I've never used Max or Maya, but watched a lot of modeling videos made in both of them, and I always thought that, by comparison, those GUIs looked really bad and difficult to learn... I mostly do modeling, and I think after all these years it's time for me to finally move on since I don't see C4D develop into anything that would make me want to upgrade or continue using it. I invested a lot of money in C4D, plugins, and training, too, and will keep using R18 for a little while longer. R18 still is my personal favourite release, and i still like using it. I must admit though that I've hardly opened it since I started with Blender. For me, switching has been long overdue. The modeling tools haven't been developed in years. A lot of the plugins for R18 that I still use are no longer working in newer versions or were discontinued. XParticles doesn't support R18 anymore. Blender is free, plugins and training are very affordable. Add-ons like HardOps offer a whole new world of hard surface modeling options, and I want to explore those and new ways of creating things. Whether or not I'll make it and learn Blender eventually remains to be seen. In any case, I'm very motivated. Having spent quite a bit of time in Blender these past eight weeks I understand both the positive and negative things people have said about it here, and I agree with a lot of them. Despite the things I don't like about Blender myself, it is still fun and, more importantly, for a number reasons, probably the best option for me in the long run. It's being developed like mad, has tons of interesting add-ons for modelling etc. Definitely worth it for me taking a closer look at it. Maybe other software companies feel Blender's bite, but I honestly don't care whether or not they do, and I don't think that any of them will really change anyway. They all appeal to different audiences. Just the price tag and/or the fact that almost everything is subscription-based and involves constant costs these days will prevent a lot of people from committing to software like Max or C4D. @Dave While there probably are tutorials out there along the lines you are looking for, it's a bit difficult to get through all the basics in Blender with one short tutorial. One of my favorite learning resources that is helping me a lot to understand the fundamentals of Blender is the "Blender Encyclopedia" that is available on Udemy: https://www.udemy.com/course/the-blender-encyclopedia/ Udemy has flash sales every other week, and right now you can get this course for under 20 bucks. Cheers, Wolf3D

Is your screenshot really from R20, which, according to your profile, is the version you are using? Im using R18, but I don't think snapping was different in R20. See the attached screenshot. With those settings the polygon pen snaps to the grid as expected. Cheers, Wolf3D

Generally, yes, non-planar polygons should be avoided. On a hard surface like this, it's definitely not a good thing and it will never look good. Re your model2 file: increase the phong angle a bit, that will fix the problem in this case. I'm attaching your model2 file with the change. You still have a problem at the back of your model, but you can fix it just like you did at the front. Also, I'm attaching my suggestion re your model 1 file. It's more or less identical to CBR's version, the only difference really is that I used your base geometry as it was and solved the problem slightly differently, also adding a control loop at the top. Might be interesting for you to see a slightly different approach. I also removed the triangles from the center circle shape. Like non-planar polygons, tris should be avoided, even on flat surfaces like that. Cheers, Wolf3D model2.c4d model.c4d

It could have been saving my ass for years, too, if you had shared that technique... I only discovered this a short while ago, to be honest. And I've been wondering ever since why noone else seems to have mentioned this in any of the tutorials I've seen, and I've seen them almost all... Four stars is plenty! Thank you! Cheers, Wolfgang

I am attaching a short video. 2x speed, no sound, but at least you can see the shortcuts. Not sure what exactly you want to achieve. In order to keep this quick, I used the shape from your file and made the necessary changes. Don't forget to weld the two points at the end (forgot to do that in the video). Do you really want a crease on that curved part? I'm also attaching an image that shows the topology you would want to use for that. Cheers, Wolf3D example.mp4

@Deck I have R18.057 Broadcast, no tablet, and I'm on a PC. Double-clicking on a point only works with the Move/Scale/Rotate tools, but not when the spline pen is active. There seems to be no other way to get to the values and tangents window. Snapping a tangent to the point doesn't work for me either (well, it does, kind of, but it leads to really weird results). Right-clicking on a point to get the four options KingComa mentioned only works when you are using the spline pen. Right-clicking still works with the Move/'Scale/Rotate tools, but you get all the options you usually get in point mode, irrespective of whether you right-click right on a point or anywhere in the viewport. Cheers, Wolf3D

You can double-click on a point, which will open the "Values and Tangents" window. There you can can set the coordinates of the point's tangents to zero. Cheers, Wolf3D

Happy to hear that the forum stays in good hands. I think the logo and name are pretty cool, kind of scifi-ish. It takes a lot of work and commitment (and some money too, I guess) to run and maintain a forum like this one. So thanks for all your (and Hrvoje's and everyon else's) efforts to keep it alive and a friendly place that is fun to visit and be a part of!

Looks terrific down to the last tiny detail! Worth the pain you went through to do it. 🙂

Wolfgang is perfectly fine. 🙂 Don't worry, it was no work at all. Everything was still there. I always keep lots of copies of objects at various stages of the modelling process, just in case. As far as SDS modelling goes, I avoid triangles whenever possible, and never use N-Gons. I don't use N-gons in hard surface modelling either. And I agree with everything Vector said. Rather than watching videos like the one you mentioned ("Why ngons are BETTER than quads for hard surface" - Really?) they should learn various ways how to resolve tris and N-gons (William Vaughan - The Pushing Points Topology Workbook VOL 1 and 2, available on Amazon). 🙂 Re your question: Yes, I could have turned that complex pole into quads. But it's a hard surface model and it wouldn't have made the mesh prettier or more even, and it wouldn't be pretty quads either unless I add more geometry to make them pretty, which would only make sense for SDS. The complex pole won't matter here. For an SDS mesh I definitely wouldn't leave a complex pole like this, not even on a flat surface. I wouldn't put such a complex pole on edges or in corners of this tram either as it may be problematic when adding chamfers/bevels. On hardsurface models like this one, I do quads where I think it is reasonable and make compromises elsewhere. I do follow certain standards though (my own ones). Keeping quads where I think it is reasonable is one of them. Keeping details in separate mesh parts that I can change/edit without affecting the rest of the mesh is another one. Most of the parts could be remodelled using SDS without too much extra work or the need to start completely from scratch, for example. And even though this geometry is to be considered a "draft mesh", I try and do these meshes in way that is clean and makes sense to me, and that doesn't give me a migraine headache when I use a bevel deformer. Cheers, Wolf3D

Wow, I'm impressed! That is looking terrific! Basically, one Boolean subtraction and one "Connect objects and delete". Compared to trying this using Boolean union (which is problematic because the objects are flush) it seemed to give me the cleanest result and the least mess. All I had to do, really, was solve the mesh after the objects were connected. Image a): I created three base shapes, two for the cylindrical parts. The one without the hole which is a bit longer than the other is the one I used for the subtraction. Image b): After the Boolean subtraction I deleted the polyons as shown in the second image, and from the cylindrical shape to be added I deleted half of the outer shell. Then I used "Connect objects and delete" to combine the two shapes. The rest was just about getting rid of the N-Gons and adding the holes on the inside (two Boolean operations, starting with the bigger hole at the back. Image c) shows half the object, and image d is from the CAD plan I used to create that bogie axle box. Is there anything in particular you would like to know about the second object you showed? Cheers, Wolf3D

Great! 🙂 I agree, it's super helpful to be able to do something like that based on the real thing. Hey Lubo, Thanks! No, please leave the images, I don't feel like my thread is being "hijacked". 🙂 Your bogie looks really good! Very nicely modeled and the details look great. Was that based on a real-life model? And no, I did the exploded views by manually moving the parts around. I've never heard of a python script that can do that for you. If you can dig it up, let me know. It would deifnitely save a lot of time... Cheers, Wolfgang

Love the glasses, they're a nice touch! Wolf3D

I'd love to see you do that mech. I'll even pay for the coffee to keep you awake and working on it 24/7... 🙂

You could use procedural materials for most of the object, and for the decals like the b logo use an image with an alpha channel and set the "projection" to flat and the "side" to front, I guess. Since this is an engraved logo, you could also try and model it. As it happens, I did a similar model by the same manufacturer not so long ago. Immediately recognized the logo... I chose to model all of the details, and I'm attaching a couple of renders, including wireframe images, that show the topology I used to create this headset. Cheers, Wolf3D

The free "MagicBook" plugin by Nitro4D (R13+) might also be worth taking a look at: https://nitro4d.com/product/magic-book/ Cheers, Wolf3D

@Vector Thanks! Same here. Reminds me of a project I did a long time ago in R9, a huge scifi dock... My PC could hardly handle it on mimimum viewport detail settings... Such detailed models are a lot of fun to do, but often they do tend to be painful, too. @EALEXANDER I did it manually because it gives me the best control over the result. I tried using effector stacks once on another project to get an exploded view and it was kind of working, but it was impossible to get the pieces arranged in the way that I wanted for the render. There may be a way to have more control over the effectors and "art direct" it with MoGraph, too, but I couldn't figure it out. Happy to hear you like those exploded views. I'll post more of them with the next update. Cheers, Wolf3D

@EALEXANDER Thank you very much1 I finished the bogie last weekend, see attachments, and I'm working on the body right now. There's no end to the individual components this thing has... The modelling part is not really difficult once you figure out the CAD plan... Getting better at that, forutnately, and at assembling the pieces, but this will still take a bit until it's finished. Cheers, Wolf3D

This is a gorgeous model! Love the style (and your style in general, by the way). Plus, the topology is so neat and clean and efficient. Very nice work. Cheers, Wolf3D