Leaderboard

Yeah that curves functionality is definitely worth some wholesale poaching 🙂 Could have done with that the other week when I had to model various walls of the palace of Versaille... Fortunately I had the much underused Relief Object and ZRM to help me ! CBR

Hi! I'm wondering how to go about having dynamic object within another dynamic object. in this specific case stacked boxes with googly eyes getting hit by a ball and falling down. Can anyone point me to a tutorial? Or tell me what the setting for the parent object (the box) would have to be for this to work? So far everything explodes 🙂

To demonstrate Blender's curve options, check out the official demo file. All curves: (ps this is a screenshot of the viewport) https://www.blender.org/download/demo-files/

It'll be to do with collision modes and hierarchy somewhere, but without seeing your scene, or even a picture of the objects in it, it is difficult to know how to direct you. But here is a quick example scene I made, which should show you how things should be set up.... In the above, a Big sphere is a parent of a separate clear dome object. We want both to collide with the ground and any other colliders in the scene, so the big sphere gets a Rigid Body tag with the collision mode set to Compound Collision Object, and Moving Mesh, because both are moving together. The dome does not require its own dynamics tag. Inside that is a small sphere, but it is not part of the other hierarchy - it sits at the same level in the OM as the Big sphere. However it gets its own Rigid body tag, with collision also set to moving mesh. If you've done that right, everything should collide with the floor (which has a collider tag) and interact correctly with each other without exploding... Dynamics within dynamics CBR.c4d CBR

The issue with losing connections on type changes is annoying, true. It will be improved, but I can't give any promise about the "when". Here's a more general solution to the snowflake curve, basically a very simple L-system implementation with scene nodes which I made a while ago. Today I added a spline output. I found a bug in the spline conversion which sometimes happens if there are more than 1024 points. For larger counts you have to disable the spline output by removing the connection to scene root. With initial string F--F--F and replace string F+F--F+F one gets the snowflake curve. Also the angle for +- has to be changed to 60 degrees. You can try and modify other L systems from here (pages 8ff and 25): http://algorithmicbotany.org/papers/abop/abop.pdf The scene nodes setup supports commands F to create a cylinder, f to just move, +- for Z rotation, &^ for X rotation and /\ for Y rotation, and finally [ ] to enclose branches. You can easily add further rotation or move commands. lsystem.c4d

PPass also offers the particle index This would be a minimal setup for the purpose of attaching a cube to particle #35

Sounds powerful. Might have to take a look. Professionally I will have to stick with Adobe, though. My graphic design colleagues will definitely not switch from their Mac-Adobe-Keynote combo they know from their beginnings But privately I might mix things up a bit... Thx

It's true that there's no current way to terminate an LCV. That will definitely be added. For now you have to use your solution with an extra Bool variable which remembers if you have already reached your final state. I did a similar technique to implement the Mandelbrot iteration. For the GCD case you can use 100 as a safe number of iterations, but you can also use a better upper bound for the number of needed iterations. If you look here in the worst case section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclidean_algorithm#Worst-case you'll find the formulas N - 1 <= log_phi(b) and N <= 5 * log_10(b) where phi=golden ratio, N = number of required iterations and b = minimum of both values of which you want to compute the GCD. We neither have a log_10 nor a log_phi node (only natural and 2-based logarithm), but you can use log_phi(b) = ln(b)/ln(phi), so you can use ln(b)/ln(phi) + 1 as your number of iterations. Of course that's an "optimization" which is really specific to the GCD case. There are other cases where you can't estimate the number of required iterations, and not having a true while loop is waste of CPU time.