Cerbera

The Quantize settings are under Attributes / Mode / Modelling / Quantize, or from the cogwheel in the centre toolbar. However, the Quantize for texture does have smallest value limit of 0.01. CBR

No, you're in the tag not the tool. I see this Does M,R not get it for you ? I forget which version you are in but you should get that in your profile pls... CBR

Yeah sure - select the edges I did in the screenshot above (and store selection so you can get them again later!), find this button, (M,R, Mesh / modify / add / weight SDS tool) click it, and in attributes move that up to 100% (or whatever weight you would like, higher value = tighter edges / equivalent of tighter control loops), hit Set and then punt the SDS level up to 4 in both editor and render values. Optionally change type to OpenSubDiv. View isoparms for clean viewport. CBR

Ah yes - very useful thing that function. Doesn't work ALL the time, but when it does it can be a life-saver. This mesh is also a lovely example of when we can use SDS weighting to sharpen things to almost Hard Surface levels without having to add any control loops. Thats SDS L4 OpenSubDiv, which gives slightly nicer result than Catmull-Clark at values between 10 and 99% (100% weighting shown above where it makes no difference) CBR

Bullet dynamics didn't change though.... There is a lot more to current versions than nodes, and you can continue to ignore those to your heart's content until their usefulness compels you to try them 🙂 RS CPU and Z-remesher and the new modelling and UV tools, and simulation stuff make it absolutely worth-while updating. CBR

Lols - yes, here I am, and the answer here is particularly low-effort and easy, using, as we will, the oft-forgotten sculpt function, the Unsubdivide command, which you should get initially via shift+C / Command Manager. Running that on the original collapsed SDS version will reduce it to its base cage, and you can then extract a polygon copy of the level 0 model from that using the sculpt layout / menus. What you can't do is just delete the sculpt tag, or do Current State to Object - neither of those will work here. CBR

Does Terrain Mask work with RS ? Update: Yep seems to work fineI You have to get the mapping mode right though - flat mapping, rotate and fit to object. CBR

Can't get it to break for me in S26. But if we add a Turbulence Force to the scene with these settings then we get some nice random jiggly / wind type movement. CBR

The flower is intersecting the butterfly model, from the start to frame 196 or thereabouts (when it takes off). But I don't think that's (only) what's shown in your screenshot. I think there is something odd going on with materials as well, but you didn't provide those, so can't say. CBR

No, I don't think so. The hair system in Cinema pre-dates Voronoi Fracture by about 8 years ! I can't see any way around that. Perhaps someone else can ? CBR

As much as I appreciate the effort that has gone into the video, we'll be needing the scene file uploaded before we can truly see and understand what is going on here. CBR

You are forgetting that the vibrate tag doesn't work with clones, so the cloner cannot be used with this setup. Instead copy the object with the vibrate tag, and change the seed value driving it. Do that as many times as copies you need. CBR

There are indeed lots of approaches to this sort of thing. The simplest would be to make a null at the centre of your large sphere. Position the smaller sphere exactly on the surface of the bigger one somewhere, then make it a child of the null. If you want to position that accurately, simply create the large sphere at world centre, then add up its radius and that of the smaller sphere, and set that value in coordinates manager... Then get a vibrate tag on the null, and give it 360 degrees of rotation in all axes, setting a frequency of around 0.1 - 0.3. Press play. Smaller sphere will appear to roll randomly over the surface, but actually isn't rolling, just moving with a fixed offset which makes it 'seem' to chase the surface. But unless your spheres are textured with some sort of pattern that will not be obvious, so if the rolling sphere is just a block colour, or chrome or something then it wouldn't have to actually roll... If it does need to physically roll, then you can add bullet rigid body dynamics to that setup, and carefully balance follow position / rotation with the non-dynamic animation so that you still get the movement of the vibrate tag but also have physical collision properties, which if got right, will make it actually roll on the surface. For that you may need an attractor force placed at the centre of the large sphere to drag the rolling sphere inwards onto the surface, and a lot of friction on both objects, the larger sphere being the collider that prevents that smaller ball ever reaching the source of the attractor... Update: I didn't even need the attractor - just lots of friction ! rotating sphere CBR.c4d CBR

I agree this is not an object that should be made this way. You'll get far nicer and better-looking results if you just poly model it. As Bezo demonstrates above we have various tools that'll do it - sculpt smooth, or regular smooth brush - even selecting all the polys on a side, and zero-scaling along normals (or close to it), but none of these are going to give you a surface that actually looks like that kind of carton. It's going to end up looking like it is made of cloth or some other squidgy type stuff, and won't have any of the hard, consistent, manufactured crease / fold lines that define these cartons. CBR

Oh those are looking superb 🙂 No 3 is my clear favourite so far, though they all have their own charm... CBR

I do. And yes, I started from the basic shape before any insets. Yes, angle has to be high enough to 'get over' the acute corners, and as you say leaves just the single points at each junction to correct, which can be done by eye, but it frustrates me that 'by eye' seems to be the best we can do here - ideally I would like to know we can get these things correct in a mathematically precise kind of way... Personally, I think we could do with a brand new 'Shell' tool that deals exclusively with adding thickness to things and is immune to the pitfalls our other tools succumb to in these sort of circumstances. Max has this, and it has a special 'straighten corners' checkbox that just magically corrects these sort of corner issues. I have suggested to this to Maxon in the past, and again more recently in response to your post. I know they continue to take trad modelling seriously, so remain hopeful they will listen. CBR

No, I don't think Cinema does have an equivalent for that. I can see how it is useful. So we can get that result, but needs a few more clicks ! CBR

Well, they are still error-state polys at the end of the day, that are interpreted by other apps arbitrarily and differently, so in today's infinitely extensible world best to avoid them if we can surely ? Or at least be very familiar and clear about when they matter and when they don't. In the example I was referring to they were deforming into a cylinder (or at least that's what I thought), hence my initial confusion about how that was possible... But I would venture that Ngons have never been great - merely 'functionally adequate in limited circumstances'. I don't think we could ever describe them as 'ideal', and they do tend to produce weak, unstructured meshes that can affect such diverse things as negatively affecting UV relaxing to disrupting future modelling and selection operations (though I must also acknowledge that in other circumstances they can actually facilitate moves that would not be possible without them). It's not that I think they don't have any place in modelling, I just think they are not something we should be aiming for in general. There should be a persisting 'avoid if we can' rule-of-thumb going on at the back of our minds during most modelling projects (that aren't just text !). I think they have achieved a certain stigma through their own misuse, because they tend to be the hallmark of the new, the inexperienced and the lazy - a lot of new people initially think they can use them anywhere, or instead of actual edge flow and topology, or to avoid having to actually 'solve' any topology, and they may get that impression from the people who use them casually and 'properly' and yet either don't acknowledge them at all, or are unclear about explaining why they are getting away with it on their planar surfaces. Yes, that ! 🙂 CBR

Your desired result is also incorrect if the aim of this enterprise is to avoid UV distortion. For that to be correct A and B would have to be the same sizes as the corresponding parts in the cap islands... And if that were corrected that would give you 1 very long island that would be a crushingly inefficient use of the UV space and force your cap islands to be unnecessarily small if equalising island size is something you need to do, and it probably is. Now, we can get your desired result, or rather the correct version of it by doing an automatic UV in cubic mode, and then manually realigning and terracing the rim blocks into one contiguous piece. But that is not a good idea for the reason above. What we could try is planar projecting the front cap and rims, then relaxing just the rims outwards from the cap, like so (closeup)... ...which seems to get us less distortion than I was imagining we might get, but if we want something that is truly mathematically distortion-free, then we really need to slice every single one of those radial corner edges to get that, as shown in this video by C4D leviathan Noseman... the circumstances are the same, in that we have curvature in more than 1 direction along the rim. In your case though, this curvature is restricted to a very minimal area, so the distortion consequences of that are not so apparent using the approach above, and indeed that may be a reasonable solution in your case. But if not, here's what you need to do to do it right ! CBR

The short answer is that this is one of those very rare shapes that Extrude alone cannot deal with ! The reasons for that are to do with the way it averages / combines contributing edges' angles of conjunction at points of termination and the extrapolation thereof, in which there is scope for error, and the way that error manifests is the inaccurate positioning of the newly extruded surface. Simple hey ? No, but I am less interested in the 'why does it do that ?' than in the 'how do we get around it ?' once we accept it does, as we surely must...🙂 I started off by removing the ngons in the base shape caused by that rogue vertex in the middle on one side. Then we have the option to Inset all faces, but we shouldn't do that. Instead we will apply a bevel in Solid mode so that we get box corners everywhere, which are the best chance of controlling and defining the geometry there particularly in relation to keeping corners sharp after any future subdivision. But it also has a corollary effect of allowing Extrude to better know what is going on and thereby allow it to work in a (slightly) more easily correctable way. Now, some things to note. If Extrude fails, so will a Zero-extrude and subsequent Normal Move; they both use the same 'averaging' calculations to get the result, so the same errors will occur. So instead we have to do the extrude, and fix its fail points manually, which isn't ideal, but is what we have to do ! I would be interested to see if the extrude functions in Blender and Houdini can do better. So we need X-ray mode at this point, so we can see exactly what is occurring throughout our extrude process, and thereby see what we need to correct to make up for its shortcomings. And in most cases we will have just a single vertex to move at each of the major points of the model. Initially we should do that by eye, but when you are close you can break out such new tools as Straighten Edges (or HB_lineUp if you have HB Modelling bundle) to further repair things. This one took me about 5 mins to clean up to a standard I would call 'reasonable' ! If there is a way to do all this automatically I have not yet found it, and suspect I never will, unless scene nodes can come dramatically to the rescue, but alas I don't have the time today to get into those... UPDATE: Fellow C4D alumni Noseman has since pointed out that we can see the erroneous extrude directions if we look at the Vertex normals (with the phong tag set at a similarly high angle to that we needed to use in the Extrude)... As those are not directly editable, that would seem to be the end of that particular avenue, at least as far as auto-type solutions are concerned... CBR

Physical render / GI there, doing it's best 🙂 CBR

Both me and @VECTOR have done Tie Fighters in the past (and Darth Vader now I come to think of it !), and both with fairly furious levels of accuracy and painstaking (though intensely joyful) manual modelling. It will be interesting to see how various auto-greebling comes out, and I am curious to see how much of the rather specific detail on a Tie Fighter matters to the general impression if it isn't specific - personally I suspect the silhouette alone will probably carry it through 🙂 The real challenge with greebling is to produce stuff that seems random and non-repetitive enough to be interesting, whilst also making sense in a practical way, and not looking plonked-on-for-the-sake-of-it ! Good luck, Paduan greeblers ! * *This doesn't make sense. Presumably Yoda is not condoning Tie Fighters. But there wasn't an emoticon for DV or the silly emo new one. CBR

One of these is a polygon model (no SDS, bevel), and the other is a spline in an extrude, also parametric bevel. As you can see, both easily cope with the hard corner transitions we need for convincing metalwork. I did an SDS one as well, but that was for 'the joy of the process', and a bit OTT in terms of effort-result, as I had to SDS weight all the corner edges, and add some insets to the main faces, giving us quite a 'highly pressured' SDS result that serves as the perfect argument for why the other methods would be better here. But even that looks totally fine when you're not looking at the wires, and if you have an aversion to edge weights or don't like the SDS wrenching it produces (which would be avoidable incidentally, through the weighting of additional edges), you could always just add more control loops to complete it the traditional way, though now the advantages of all this extra time become smaller and smaller the more effort that goes into it, and would only truly come into their own should you need to deform that object later, so the argument for splines starts to look pretty good at this point - after all there we don't even need a bevel deformer - all the rounding controls are in 1 simple Extrude object. HOWEVER, it would take a little time to get those splines accurate and connected correctly so they worked with an extrude, so I would venture that the fastest AND best way of doing this would be to simply build it quickly out of primitives as I showed above, but then to use 'edge to spline' to get the right spline from that, which is probably faster than doing it with the spline tools !

Lols - came here to say that ! 🙂 I couldn't see how it is getting nice surfaces when tubularised from all the horrible ngons, but later I see it mysteriously 'became quads' at some point ! What's goin' on there then ? Some sort of procedural remeshing ? CBR

Igor is right - support tickets can be used to suggest ideas too. However, I believe Maxon are well aware of the need for UDIM workflows by now, so I'd be surprised if it wasn't already in their plans. CBR