Cerbera

There is no way around that as far as I am aware, other than making the cloner editable and either connecting all the strips into one mesh so you can use a single cloth tag, or you can keep them separate but you'd need cloth tags for each. You can't put the cloth tag on the cloner. CBR

Not so stupid a question... If you want a way to do it without effectors, you need TWO Linear cloners, and very specific axis placement within that triangle, which is here, at the centrelines, which is not necessarily where it appears by default, depending on how you made it... 2 cloners Tri grid CBR.c4d CBR

Excellent - this is a very useful thread. Thanks for posting your answer. CBR

Not easily, no. FFD or Mesh Deformers are your best best with geometry that complex. I agree, if they don't provide these as straight sections they should make that very clear on the download page. CBR

...and if we didn't want to use edge weighting here's one way to do it with control loops... As you can see the only difficult control loops are the ones that run across the end of the extruded part. They must make box corners near to the extrude, but just 1 loop away be evenly spaced between the outer rim polys describing the curvature there. They also need to be pushed slightly away from centre to maintain perfect rounding. (B) On the other end of those loops, you could run them all the way to the symmetry centreline but as there is pair of them, nicer and neater to terminate those in a (not inverse!) kite quad (A) before they reach the centre like I have... You'll notice that is now double the poly density of the rest of the shape (C) until we get to the other end of the extrude. Although that isn't ideal (in that ideally you would want the entire perimeter of the circle to be evenly distributed) it is not problematic in practice if a) the new edges you add are evenly spaced, and b) you adjust them outwards to match the curvature of the lesser segmented parts. disc extrude sample CBR Fix.c4d CBR

More radial segments required to establish the curvature, and prevent that tearing. And lets not be creating degenerated / concave error-state polys like that inverse kite you have circled above...those support loops have got to make it out all the way to the edge, AND do so evenly. So whenever we need to do hard rectangular edges from essentially circular topology we either have to use a LOT more segments in that circle, so we have inner edges to support those hard angles OR we can just use SDS edge weighting instead of control loops, which means we can work a bit lower poly, and just have to select a few edges to weight... CBR

Check the axis of the trees are at their base. Difficult to say any more than that without a picture of the base geometry. Also, what is a 'multi-cloner' ? CBR

There are easier ways to make this sort of thing, but in the case of this specific hat, not much that gives the same level of control over individual pieces as placing them 1 by 1. We could, for example clone a hexagon in Honeycomb Array Mode to make a giant flat sheet of them, then Spline wrap, Deform, and FFD it into the shapes you need for the hat, which would be 3 patches of them, one for the top, one for the brim, and a third for the sides. But the difficulty with that method is creating a perfectly circular array of hexagons of that size. Although 'Circle' is one of the forms offered by Honeycomb Array it is not the sort of perfect circle this hat demands, so individual placement might still win at the end of the day if you want to avoid boolean operations there. Another way would have been trying to do it with textures and displacement, which I think would be feasible, but not necessarily that much less effort, and that would present its own unique set of problems to solve, not least the problem of needing pretty much zero distortion in the UV unwrapping so that no hexagon become 'stretched'... CBR

I don't I'm afraid... CBR

Base modelling of hexsphere (with enough surface ego to bend / deform nicely) then Honeycomb cloner / connect, create the border sections, then add thickness, then make editable, place under Fracture to get effector based functionality back. CBR

I can confirm that is also broken in latest R25. I will report it if not already known... CBR

Hmmm. No, you can't really give those pieces a rounded top surface (more than what bevel or smoothing deformers can do) because the geometry they are built from (generated by VF) is entirely unsuitable for that, being as it is exclusively ngons and tris, and at woefully low resolution. If we want specifically rounded geometry or a bulging effect in certain parts of this model I would have to postulate that this rules out VF as a feasible way of proceeding, unless SDS or Live ReMeshing can save the day, which seems unlikely. Of course you haven't really said what you are trying to achieve overall, so largely impossible to advise what may work instead ! But in answer to your other question, the VF pieces are already individually addressable I think. At least you can see their indices if you set Transform Mode to Index, and those do respond to Mograph selection tags. For example, here I am able to show the indices and nominate 2 of the pieces to be hidden by a plain effector's visibility parameter and controlling field... CBR

Welcome to the Core ! 🙂 Please upload images via the cafes upload system rather than bouncing out to externals. That is a very tricky thing to unwrap ! You don't have enough seams in there at the moment for it to be able to unwrap it without massive distortion / overlapping UVs, which may be the root of the problem. TBH I don't know if I would try and UV unwrap this unless I had to for a very specific painting job. Instead I would use Tri-planar mapping, which unfortunately doesn't exist back in R14, so you'd have to make a Triplanar setup yourself using layers / vector shaders etc. There is a tutorial for that, which I'm damned if I can find now... But if you are going to unwrap it as per your current plan, you need additional seams, as the ones you have are insufficient for that to be able to relax, certainly in the case of these 2 islands marked below. A just needs 1 big additional seam, and B should probably get split down the centreline, and projected from each side. I would map this for you, but no version I currently have will open as far back as R14. CBR

That sounds like a bug to me. If you provide the file I can report it for you... though don't rate your chances of them going back to 23 to fix it now... CBR

Please fix your profile so we are not giving out the wrong version info... Ok, I think that is down to a conflict between your spline wrap, which commands the text to align to and wrap along that spline, and then the plain effector tries to move the letters off that position, which I suspect leads to this unpredictable behaviour. That might be tricky to solve because we are unable to alter the priorities of the wrap or the effector, and the known screen update issues that can happen with certain setups when navigating the timeline. The solution then, is to get an editable copy of the Text object (Current state to Object etc), bang that in a Fracture, and make your effector control that instead, thereby eliminating the wrap, and in theory the conflict from the equation... Also I had much better results with that using a Linear Field rather than the box one. CBR

Welcome to the Core 🙂 Please complete your profile before asking questions, and upload the scene file so we don't have to spend the first 5 posts working out which version you have, and how you have made the model / rig ! Very hard to work out what is going on from 2 screenshots. CBR

Just to clarify / expand; that is not to say that the sculpt brushes don't work on meshes without a sculpt tag - they do, but in order to get the sculpt tag, and do interactive subdivision we do need to hit the subdivide button one time to get the sculpt tag, and then as many times after that for levels of subdivision you need. But no need to go to the sculpt menu for that, it IS in the sculpt layout, just not quite as obvious as it could be ! For reference, the Mac / PC thing is irrelevant - sculpt layout looks identical on either ! CBR

I see ! 🙂 It could be the shape that is causing the problem to some extent, but I agree that is a long shot, and QRemesher seems to have done a decent job in making that as low poly and evenly distributed polys as that sort of form can be. One thing to try might be to triangulate the whole thing, which will give a different dynamics result, though not necessarily the one you want either... but it is something to try... You can also try manually adding more geometry at the point where it bulges and inflates in an attempt to constrain that a bit more. The trouble with softbodies is that you never know what is going to work until you try it, so a great deal of experimentation is normally required to get these things right. There's an excellent video by Christ Schmidt that gives the best chances you have for understanding those settings, and if you haven't already seen it, that is a good place to start... CBR

You need structural to be a lot higher than that - somewhere around 200-1000 I think... CBR

You seem to be expecting your substance install to show up in Cinema - it won't ! - The 2 programs are not, and don't have to be connected !! You export your model as FBX, open that in Substance Painter as a standalone application, do your painting, and then export your maps back to Cinema when done ! CBR

Look in the extensions menu (cinema)... CBR

Because jiggle is a special type of deformer that requires it to be a child of a physical object, not a clone. CBR

Not an expert in Character rigging myself, but did have a quick look, and see that the tail is constrained thusly... So I think you gotta find another one of 'those' to drag in there to link it to... Of course if you want an answer that ISN'T an outright guess, we should tag the man himself, @everfresh, who pops in from time to time !! CBR

No I don't think so, presuming Z is what is animated. But you could put the object in a null, and move that instead ! CBR

Lols, it really doesn't 😉 It takes the sort of mind that can open Vectron, press 'go', tweak 3 settings, find a nice camera angle, and do some moderate sky lighting, and you're all good !! CBR