Cerbera

Not enough information to answer. We would need at minimum to see the model and materials in question. CBR

Ah yes I always forget about that semicircle inlay option... good shout for simple procedurality... CBR

Yeah, you're in the wrong bit ! You are dealing with a Bullet Rigid Body dynamics system, not the new sim stuff. CBR

No. This will not work, and Boolean is the wrong tool for that job unless you are working with solid objects. And even when it does work, it is literally the worst way of getting that shape. You could use splines instead, inside a spline mask (like a regular boolean, except for splines) and an Extrude Object to get this shape the easy / quick / lazy way ? But it's not actually that hard to model this properly out of polygons / SDS, without ever having to use a horrible boole - if you are interested I will show you the proper topology for that. CBR

Welcome to the Core ! 🙂 You are in the best place for C4D help, and we have a good number of modelling guys who will be able to assist you... This isn't the place to modelling questions, but yours is a very quick one to answer so I'll do it here this time... please also complete your profile so that we don't have to ask which version you are running every time you have a question... The procedure for setting up a bend is as follows: 1. Make the bend deformer a child of the object you wish to bend - you have done that OK. 2. Find the axis you wish to bend along - in your case it is the red axis, or X. 3. In the bend attributes, change Alignment to X+ and then hit Fit to parent. Play with Strength. Bend will now work as expected in that direction. CBR

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