Cerbera

I will add that subdividing just part of a mesh is almost never good modelling technique except in a few really quite specific applications. If you tell us how you plan to use it we might be able to suggest a preferable way that doesn't result in a mesh that may give you problems later. CBR

Well, for the GTLF I just tried the answer was no ! CBR

Change simulation scale in project settings / dynamics globals ? CBR

Lols - that's the sort of thing that would slowly annoy me over several years. But if we've only got that to complain about I reckon they're doin' OK ! 🙂 CBR

I am delighted with Pyro, both in terms of what it gives us right now, and what it promises for the future. But let's not forget to raise a glass for full radial symmetry as a mode - now seamless regardless of context - that should be making the modellers smile, and I expect to see that suitably deployed for xmas snowflakes when the time gets here ! CBR

Er... no, I don't think there is, other than what you can do with the various axis controls. CBR

As usual Chris Schmidt is here to show us the new things with his normal degree of brilliance and thoroughness ! CBR

Er.... no I disagree. It is a practically evidenced thing across multiple applications that concave polygons are just incorrect technique with SDS, and arguably without it also. It is always possible to avoid them, and so we should ! 🙂 Yes to that 🙂 I've always hated that old light blue on puce grey ! Anyway, here is an SDS result - how do you rate its viewport appearance and quality ? Are we seeing any artefacts, deviation from cylindrical, lumpiness or smoothing problems ? I've even given it some blurred metal action so we can really see. Pretty decent I reckon. And predictably, yes, that was a horrible boole inside Cinema's Z-remesher with a hard edge selection defined. So I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss that option - the topology might not be as good as we could get by hand, but it's perfectly serviceable as far as SDS is concerned, and took roughly 1 minute to sort out. UVs would be somewhat less than ideal though, so there's that... But I don't think that makes this issue moot, even in a world where fewer and fewer people place any importance on doing things 'properly' - it is good that there is a thread discussing the best approaches for doing so ! CBR

That is 'correct' (as in expected behaviour), and 'twas ever thus ! If there is another object selected as well as a spline, then the spline's tangents will be unavailable. So, whilst not a bug, I agree it shouldn't be this way, and will make a suggestion to that effect, although I feel sure that has been done before now, so there is probably a technical limitation or reason it remains the case. Of course there are ways around it in the case of multiple splines - combine them all (or create them as islanded segments within a single spline), make your co-dependent edits, then split them up again ! Correct. That's one that does exactly what it says on the tin ! 🙂 CBR

Its a perennial and interesting problem... I should check that you are intending to use this with SDS, right ? And that you are wanting to do this properly, and therefore would be discounting the quick and lazy cheats style approaches, like re-meshed boole or volume builder methods ? If so, you are thinking along the right sort of lines, but the implementation of it is unideal so far, in that you have ended up with triangles on the inside and error-state concavity problems at the corners of the outside. You can't have concave quads like this; no internal poly angles should be greater than 180 degrees. More info on that here in case its unclear... So those arrow shaped polys are wrong, or at least technically bad. I would be surprised if they render OK, without any tearing. Anyway, you want to find a density of tube segmentation so that the block sits slightly inside the topology on both sides, like so. Of course it will be different per side. Then you inset each poly group the once, and then you are setup to do the 180 degree cut thing, as demo'd here by Shepard O'Neill a few years back. I am mad busy this week on my own modelling nightmares, otherwise I would have demo'd it for you, but hopefully this should send you n the right direction... CBR

Aw noooo, that can't be right... 🙂 lols CBR

Welcome to the Core !🙂 Please complete your profile so we know which version you are using, and upload the .c4d file ! CBR

You'll get much more interest if you complete your profile to show us which version you are using etc, and include the scene file - very difficult to work out what you are trying to do, and how it's all setup from screenshots and few words alone. CBR

First off - please update to the latest version of R26 - there has been at least one major service pack that fixes a whole load of modelling issues, and problems with the knife tool under certain circumstances were among bugs that got fixed, so you need to do this to rule out it being a problem with the program. CBR

Well, this is all very game-changing and entertaining. Looks like he has built Image Input AI into Cinema ! Can't be arsed to finish your project off ? Type a few words, and hand it over to Captain AI. Is this how AI takes us over? ; it seems helpful at first, then one day we wake up, and it doesn't need us anymore ?! CBR

It's a capsule that adds thickness using the nodes business. The only thing you have to be careful with using a loft is to make sure you have an even amount of segments so that quad caps / CPH / Grid doesn't create any triangles. CBR

Yep, Ok, there is something odd going on with that, and I agree, not the first one. I will see if that has been reported, and if not do so. CBR

Hi Eric Welcome to the Core ! 🙂 Nice to have you around - great work there. CBR

Gonna need some video of that, cause they seem just fine for me... CBR

The wording of that is...unclear. If you mean 'can you mix dynamics based collision and effector movement', the answer is yes. You can add a Rigid Body Dynamics tag to your cloner, and use the Follow Position and Follow Rotation commands in the Forces tab therein to balance that with keyframed or effected movement. Or do you mean collision using the Collision deformer ? CBR

User error I'm afraid. If you dissolve or melt that line then there is nothing to support the 4th corner of it and you force it to 'fold'. Look from the other side, which makes this clearer... Do not dissolve that line - you need it. Instead, collapse back to single edge one loop further back into the mesh. It's a duff idea to have kite quads on borders anyway. CBR

Check the order of your hierarchy is correct, and that nothing refers to anything else in the scene until after it has been calculated. But this is really what Save Incremental is for - ALWAYS save incremental versions of files, so that when one craps out on you, you have the previous, separate file to go back to. Without reference to the file, or much clue what the setups are, or without knowing even which version you are working in it is difficult to advise specifically ! But there is no function I am aware of that will repair a broken or corrupted save file. CBR

Please complete your profile so we know which version you are in. Especially pertinent here because of course cloth has changed completely now. But it looks like are maybe in R19-21 so I will work on that principal. You can try a Correction Deformer to access the component modes of the parametric Loft. With CD selected, Make a selection of polygons, store that selection. You can now move the tag from the deformer to the loft and that may allow you to access the polys for the best that way. I'm not on a machine that runs a version that old so can't check if it works, but memory seems to suggest it might. CBR

Really ?! 🙂 That would be the case if this was an organic mesh and we could play with the weighting of loops to get 'knee bend' type arrangements such as Delta Mush is so good at facilitating, but when its fixed diameter tubing, and the angles can't change - well you can't change physics ! That size of tube cannot go round that angle, rotating from that point, without something non-uniform going on inside the tube, which is why we need that photo to show us what it actually does ! I would be delighted to be proved wrong if you if feel like teaching an old dog new tricks 😉 CBR

You need to say which version of the software you are in before we can answer definitively. If you are using the new softbody simulation in 2023, then the Bullet menu is not where you turn the gravity down - find the Simulation tab / scene and turn it down there instead. CBR