Cerbera

Topical ! 🙂 It is good isn't it ?! Is that your video ? If so well done, and if not good share regardless... CBR

Yes, but do it more. You can name your firstborn after us if you like. CBR

As it should be, and of course you should all be hanging off our every power-mad word ! 😉 lols. Seriously though - maximum props to @Igor for implementing a multi-pronged improvement strategy almost immediately ! CBR

This, I think, is the first couple of moves. We start with a plane, and immediately establish the right amount of segments, colorizing them temporarily so we can see what is windows and what isn't. It's 42 x 10 btw, 9 of which are in the angled section. Even though the building profile might be symmetrical, its doorways aren't, so we are limited to using that only initially, but that can be quite helpful for drawing an exactly symmetrical spline (spline pen) using your front reference to be quite accurate about which panels that intersects where, like so... you could also do this with the arc primtive, but trust me - it's easier to just draw it with 2 clicks and a drag ! We don't have to worry abut either triangles or ngons here, in fact this is one of the very rare situations where ngons are preferable and 'most correct under the circumstances', especially where we need the 'double split' ventilation panels above the windows and there is no need to continue that segmentation anywhere else, connected or not. In the above green arrow is the symmetry line, and red arrow shows the 'hinge point' to which we will snap our modelling axis when we come to rotating this off vertical. Note we have exactly square panels EXCEPT at the base, which will become the flat section, and the L/R edges, which matches the reference with those narrower panels we get at each end. Next step will be either boolean-ing away the excess with a very high poly Operand B so we get immaculate curvature without subdivision or, merely cutting it out based on the spline reference like I did below (it'll be covered in flashing panels anyway). And that should give you everything you need for; a) making the front panel details - you can make the grid using edge to spline and sweep(s) for example. b) making the upper curved back section from the spline, possibly via a sliced lathe that is subsequently made editable and extruded at the base to match that flat section. c) making the flashing that bridges the 2 sections (Swept L profile + thickness unless you want to make each ridge tile individually, in which case a cloner setup using that spline might work (not at the ends though - they'd have to be manually completed !)). By the way, the 'angle of dangle' on that front bit is 51.6 degrees off Y, based on an orthographic(ish) side view I found. Then we can delete the polys where the doors will be, and patch those in perpendicular to the floor (also shown above). This will be the basis for all geometry you need for the front side. Next up, the back. Lathe FTW here. We need to rotate the lathe 90 degrees so X is facing up, THEN child the spline to it and set a sectional angle of -38.2 degrees and set our spline interpolation to a high (16+) uniform type value, at which point we can make it editable straight away (having taken a copy you can go back to ideally) and extrude down the flat section to meet the frontage, giving you this sort of result... This is of a suitable density to either pull polys out directly to get the adjoining buildings that come off the back of it, OR to cleanly intersect them with / use as boole operands if that is easier / more optimal to your final plans. I quickly tested the former (and IMO superior) option below... Hope that helps... I do hope you are making that barge lift thing in front of it as well, and want help with that at some point ! 😉 CBR

Not doing Shift + T to call the tool ? CBR

No disrespect to anything people have suggested above, but I don't think anyone has quite nailed that shape yet, which isn't so much like a segment of orangey roundness as we might initially think. If it is, it's a hell of a long orange ! And nobody is doing what I'd consider the most important thing, which is using what we've got (reference-wise) to determine a highly accurate shape, see below... I agree that ideally you need the arch plans to do this fully accurately, but we are helped to a really remarkable extent by the grid panelling on the front, which allows us to establish accurate proportions easily guided by that alone.. There is a raised flat section about half the height of a human at its base we have to take account of, which is a further deviation from the spherical segment plans suggested above. But the great news is that there is some flashing that covers the ridgeline, which, somewhat crucially means your front surface does not have to be contiguous with the rest of it, and there are lots of reasons you wouldn't want it to be so ! So that's all good ! 🙂 CBR

Welcome on in 🙂 Lots and lots of tutorials available - you might have to narrow it down a bit to lets us know what area / sort of thing you are interested in learning most / first ! CBR

Oh yeah 🙂 Scenes nodes FTW ! CBR

Lols - don't thank me too early - reason I requested scene file is that I am ridiculously busy with client work today, so if I do get time to look I need a decent head start ! 🙂 But there are lots of imaginative, brilliant brains here that can probably help you if I can't get away from the grindstone 'til a bit later ! CBR

That landscape effect is called 'Terracing'. Traditionally those are best made by making horizontal silices, generating splines from those and then Extruding those so you get a vertical-only 'posterized' or stepped look. The problem here of course is that generating the splines from the geo is not a procedural process, and therefore I'm not seeing how we could make it work with a moving / changing landscape mesh unless we can find a way to make those splines adapt to the changing contours. I haven't thought of one so far ! I'm not sure Voronoi Fracture can give you what you want either, but agree it's a good thing to try early on ! It would very much help us to help you if you uploaded your scene file so we don't have to recreate it all from scratch ! CBR

I am not sure we can help without a) having that plugin and b) you providing your file ! Without of either of those things I have nothing to go on for what might be going wrong here... CBR

Funnily enough, I was going to suggest drawing them frame by frame, and merely assigning the image sequence to a flat plane parallel to the camera !! Whilst that might be a bit 'manual' initially and might not be such a clever solution, it does give you (perhaps) the 2 main things you want out of this - something that looks EXACTLY as you intend, and something that runs mega-fast, and doesn't take too long to setup. Now, if you play with VDBs and volume builder and whatever not only are you dealing with the live rendering (or at at least calculation of) of millions or polys of voxels (or both), but then you award yourself that additional struggle of trying to make sketch and toon interpret it, such that you get something close to your intended reference. Now you may get lucky and get some passable results quickly, OR that may take a few hours to setup, and get working properly / as you'd hope in the first place, and god knows how many after than trying to dial in sketch and shading settings to get more precisely what you are after. At some point in that process I would bet that you might wish you had just drawn 5 frames, and called it done ! 🙂 Just a thought... CBR

I honestly don't think there is a great deal of difference, and it probably comes down to personal choice, and what he prefers working with. But perhaps the creation of masks is a bit easier, and things like blur on those masks can remain parametric for longer in AE. But I can't immediately see anything he does there that couldn't be done in PS also. CBR

Thank you @Icecaveman. It is certainly true that I do not comment on a great number of threads because I am very conscious of the importance of 'moderator impartiality'. I also take moderation decisions regardless of, and sometimes actively contrary to what my personal opinions may be, which I would hope shows that I respect the duty I undertake, and aim to do it fairly. Like Igor, normally I would stay away from such threads as the one under discussion, or only contribute minimally, preferring instead to take the 'Johnny Depp approach' of walking calmly away from fire if you can. But of course if you are moderating, you have to read everything, so walking away isn't really a viable / responsible option ! I am not often inspired to drastic action by what I read, but I am human, and I do get worn down over time, and do accept that as a failing I should resist !🙂 And so I can appreciate why you think that was overreach to lock the thread, but I would like it known that a rather considerable amount of thought over quite a lot of time went into the decision; it was not made lightly, or without a sense of regret, and nor was it done in anger, or for any personal gratification. If there was any 'sense of power' available in that move I can honestly say I didn't notice ! CBR

I'm against people repeatedly asserting things that aren't true, despite evidence presented to the contrary. It is impossible to discuss anything with people that won't respond to the points answered, the evidence shown, and explanations provided, but instead parrot the same baseless accusations again without further elaboration. You said I didn't give warnings - I then posted the warnings. You said I wasn't interested in the thread, despite me asserting specifically the opposite earlier in this one, and actively contributing to the thread in question ! I then provided a long and detailed explanation for why I locked it. But instead of responding to any of those points you just 'said the power-trip thing again'. It's very difficult to respect that attitude. And thank you for reminding me of what my moderation duties involve, but you left out the one other duty that primarily motivated the decision to lock the thread - that I am trying to do my small part in preventing Core4D from developing a reputation for being less a forum people go to for help and reasoned debate than a poisonous slanging match arena, where people say absolutely anything they like without the slightest thought or respect for the choices and opinions (and in some cases hard work) of others. No. Not bingo. I do not have any blanket objection to criticism of Maxon, especially if it is evidenced, and if the reasons for those accusations / complaints are explained, and subsequently calmly discussed. What I do object to is unevidenced assertion that goes on and on over multiple threads, for a sustained period, and involves endless repetition of the same points, some of which are valid, but more of which are not. If people were repeatedly berating Autodesk or anyone else with that level of vitriol and for that amount of time, and with that much repetition, and with so much of it unjustified or disproportionate I would have the same response. But these other companies don't seem to attract nearly the same level of hatchet-job appraisal and condemnation that appears to be exclusively reserved for Maxon, and I can't help but consider that unfair and feel the impulse to limit it if I reasonably can. You'll notice I have not locked this thread despite believing it's a crushing waste of everyone's time. But I would like to express the hope that Admin will do it for me at some point ! CBR

In the 10 years I have been moderating this forum I have only ever locked 3 posts, which I do not consider the behaviour of someone on a power trip. Indeed I sometimes face 'moderator criticism' for letting things run and run. Sometimes, Admin lock stuff I might have let go ! And if you think there weren't warnings, you must have missed the 2 cautionary posts I made on March 25th, of which this was the second. If you do not like the decision you are free to petition @Igor / Admin to get it unlocked, as I am free to present the case for it remaining so, and this thread (which is adding nothing) with it ! CBR

Also, if you need help in C4D with this you need to complete your profile so we know which tools are available to your version, and your hardware specs so we know what is likely to stress your machine. CBR

I did not lock it for no reason at all, nor in response to any one post. It started off toxic, and remained largely that way, despite some reasonable points being made amongst the maelstrom. Whilst not exactly an enjoyable read, personally I found it interesting. But then it became apparent that it was something of a crap-magnet for anyone who just wanted to generally bad-mouth Maxon, reasoned or not, there was a sort of undercurrent of recrudescent anger, it was all getting very tired, circular and repetitive, and I didn't think much new or constructive was going on, so it seemed to me to have reached its natural conclusion. If I was censoring stuff I would have deleted it shortly after it started or would be hiding it now. We DID allow the conversation to continue for at least a month - almost 2 ! Only when it was rattling on and on did I feel the need to lock it in the hope we could all move on and talk about literally anything else ! I am aware some people will appreciate that and others won't but we can't please all the people all the time hey ? CBR

Welcome to the Core ! 🙂 Good to have you here - hopefully you will find it a useful place to be... CBR

Probably about time we locked it, and moved on with our lives isn't it... CBR

We have no excuse not to be now hey ? CBR

I believe especially Holger always thought those tools should be in Cinema, and had suggested as such periodically, even though he knew he would probably lose out as a result of it. I too have relied on his scripts for the last 10 years. But there are differences between the way his tools work and what we have in S26. For example, our native Fit Circle is a definite improvement on the HBMB equivalent (not only curvature aware, but also inside points auto-relax and free normal scaling / rotation. Smooth Edges is a brand new tool, and not just the same as hb_round edge - it preserves volume, and equalises point distances, which the latter does not, so I find it massively helpful to have both options. And we still need HBMB for vital functions like hb_relax, Symmetry fix, clip symmetry, PipeIt, retopo and whole load of other stuff that still isn't native yet. The new Close poly hole (grid) and bridge patch tools, and little helpers like Set Flow are the real winners though ( some early bugs aside) and this is genuinely new functionality to us, far and above what hb quadcaps can do for example... One tool I just can't get with though is Equalise edges - where we have to ring select the edges we want equalised. If you've been doing it the other way round with hb_evenDistribution all this time that doesn't compute, so it's one circumstance where I almost always continue to use what I know, and its helpful 1-click solution. In fact that's the only other thing I don't particularly like about the new modelling tools - most are a 2-stage process call - getting the tool, and then deploying it, although I accept it has to be like this if we want the advantage of lots of freely adjustable options before we hit the go button...so it's a price I am wiling to pay. So from my side of the page I love all the new modelling stuff, and had requested it often myself, but I remain pleased my HB stuff remains as well 🙂 Now if only we could get them to sort Symmetry out we'd be back on the road to modelling supremacy ! CBR

Are the bevel tools under-appreciated ? I certainly appreciate the Cinema ones !! That's the trouble with nice tools that do everything we want though - when they work perfectly we never mention them, yet if something about them is wrong, then we bang on about it endlessly ! 😉 CBR

That' quite a vague request, but with a very specific requirement ! No, you can't do that directly with splines, so you'd need to convert the main hexagon into a poly object, then you could use that to clone disc objects (or splines) into it using the Object / Surface (or other) Modes of the cloner, and then a number of effectors to push or scale those apart in order to get the effect you want. But your target result above seems to demand 2 types of circle; a general large circle, and then small ones to fill those gaps, and you won't be able to achieve that using effectors alone - you would need 2 objects in the cloners - both small and bigger circles. If you only use the one clone, then you will get random scaling to make things fit, which is different to what you illustrated above... So, those have just been randomly placed on the surface, but if you add specific topology to the hexagon, and then clone to the points or polygons instead of the general area, then you can get a lot more control over distribution... so, for example if your topology was this... and you cloned to object / points mode, then your initial distribution of circles would be not random, and more like this... ... which you could then use push apart and random effectors to further scale apart and alter from this base distribution. But it's a lot of pushing and pulling and trying different distribution modes, and whatnot while you try and find the method that lets you specifically tell Cinema HOW you want it to fill the gaps, which isn't as quite simple as the question you first posed ! CBR

Lols, helpful...not 🙂 CBR