Cerbera

You can do either - but I'd recommend starting as you have with pillars separate so that you can place them as you see fit at suitable junctions, and then inset the 4 polys on the plane at either end, scale in the corner points, connect and delete the meshes, remove any caps on the cylinders, and finally stitch n sew them together. CBR

Welcome to the Core 🙂 Please complete your profile to show at minimum which version of Cinema you are using so that we know what tools are available to you. To be honest, I am not sure why you have felt the need to model everything here separately ! Usually the best approach for character animation is to have everything in one (other than objects the character needs to pick up and put down), and not to have any body mesh at all in any area covered by clothing, so that you avoid intersection when later animated. In a model like yours above I would have combined everything into one mesh fairly early on, knowing that it would all need to move as one eventually. The usual workflow is to do that, and use stored selections to access any separate parts during the modeling process. So I would have made his head, hair and hat all out of a single mesh, and the same for the entire upper body. I can't see what is going on at the top of the trousers but it looks like the legs and shoes could all be a single mesh as well ! It's a little hard to tell from just screenshots (always upload the file, so we can see ALL the topology) but am I right in thinking you have appeared to baked in the subdivision with these separate parts ? If so, that is the wrong approach as well. This should be as low poly a model as possible to describe the shapes, but with enough key loops around joints as are important for animation so things can bend and deform properly, and should use live subdivision. So the sort of topology you are demonstrating in your lowest shot is way too high poly, and makes your job much more difficult and painful than it needs to be when it comes to joining things contiguously. CBR

As you suspect, the recent files list is not meant to be user-editable ! It is simply a record of the files you have opened before. However you can choose the number of files in that list via preferences / files in later versions of Cinema (you don't say which version you are using, and need to put that in your profile please !). Using save incremental to generate multiple versions of files is what I would call the single best way of guaranteeing you have a version to go back to should you need one later, or should a later file become corrupt for any reason. But if you don't mind living a bit more in the last chance saloon, you could use Takes for different versions, which could keep them all in the one file, though of course if that one files goes wrong. you may be in trouble... CBR

Well no, but of course it is useful to be able to turn those on and off independently of their visible states ! CBR

Yeah I only asked for the one point back 😉 Other points may remain valid / contested ! CBR

Er... not sure about versions previous, but S26 Physical Sky has a checkbox ! So 1 mark back for consistency at least 😉 CBR

I actually don't disagree that it would sometimes be useful to eliminate poly objects from scene / vp calculation. However, the logic that only generators can be turned off does make sense to me - I can see why they did that, and that's all I'm saying. CBR

Yeah I have to say I don't find that illogical at all ! You can't turn a polygon object on and off, whereas you obviously can with generators. CBR

Sir Vector knows how much I respect and enjoy his modellings, but as we're all piling in with the 'helpful criticism'... I am going posit the notion that we don't have quite enough topology around the eyes to be able to adequately define the 'points' at either end of them, which are subtle, but definitely there. # CBR

3D Connexion Space Explorer (Hardware controller) Double-click functionality: Points=point info, Edges= select complete loop, Polys=Select Connected, UV=Select UV Island. Right-click spinners to reset to default Drag directly in fields to change values R-click menu context sensitivity. CBR

Excellent project - horses are pretty difficult to get looking just right, but most of your curves (back end, head) are absolute winners, though I agree with face needing to be longer, and the edge flow adjustments so the chest flows more consistently 'around' to the belly area... Also, is his tail coming out of his arse a bit ? Pretty sure the tail should emerge before the bum-crack starts, though I haven't seen the film ! Keep up the excellent work, and lovely to see you back here and your gloriously crafted topology on something new ! 🙂 CBR

Yep, none of that 🙂 CBR

Initially I thought you were just looking for the S (frame selected) command, which does seem to do a lot of what you are asking for, but not all of it alas... CBR

No, I think all generators except SDS are going to have to count towards totals, otherwise we could entirely bypass the poly restriction for some models. Let's try and do our all wizarding efficiency at the polygon level ! CBR

Welcome to the Core 🙂 Yep, so those are essentially centre-tapered cylinders that emerge from plane objects containing the right topology (ie circular at the base). Subdivision Surfaces provides all the smoothing, so this can be very low poly. You need to complete your profile to tell us which version of Cinema you have, so that we know which tools are available to you, and also to give us some idea of your level of modelling so that we can tailor advice to your level.... CBR

Welcome to the Core ! 🙂 Hmmmm. Tricky. Don't know the answer to that. maybe worth an ask directly on RS forum ? CBR

Yes, we can probably allow generators like SDS or parametric bevelling. So no more or less than 99 polys in base mesh. All other uses of '99' at your discretion ! We should also allow triangles, as this challenge is about such radically minimal topo... CBR

Excellent 🙂 Let's make that even more interesting by making it EXACTLY 99, not just less-than 😉 CBR

You seen this one ? CBR

Yes, as I said it is known already, and I had previously reported it. For your general information devs ALWAYS need scene files, and very specific information about your setup, which is why it was crucial that you also reported it so they had that sort of detailed information. What crashes your machine may not do so on mine for example, as proved the case initially ! CBR

Not the question you originally posed, and only marginally less vague ! 😉 Pls try and be as precise and accurate as possible when you pose these questions so that we don't spend all that time answering.... something else ! Very pleased you found a solution nonetheless... but just to let you know that I am going to mark my answer as the solution to the actual question you posted, so that the thread makes sense to people reading it in future ! CBR

That's really not how fields are designed to be used. Selections are made with selection tools of which we have many ! Fields can interact with (for example) vertex maps, but not component selections directly AFAIK. What exactly are we looking at there? Are you trying to select a whole object, groups of polygons, or (as it looks from the yellow area) partial polygons, which is impossible with ANY selection tool !! We need to know what you are trying to achieve more globally / in a wider context so we can properly advise. The scene file would help as well, so we can see what that is made from ! CBR

Cinema does not include any built in 'actions' functionality like photoshop. There are plugins that contain all sorts of scripts, but none that I am aware of that let users create their own with no scripting knowledge. CBR

That is working for me just fine in 26.014. Please could you upload a scene file where you have the problem, and which version of S26 is this pls ? EDIT: I HAVE just managed to make it crash in latest release version, so have demo scene file, and have logged it. Thank you for the report ! CBR

How long's that been there ?! 🙂 CBR