Cerbera

I think this might be a scene scale thing among other things - those objects are absolutely TINY, which is causing Mesh Checker to flag 100% of the polys as error-state (edges shown in yellow below)... But the question is 'Is it right to do so?' ! I would suggest not, because if I just scale the whole model set up 1000% or so, those errors disappear and a new problem becomes apparent ! None of the edges to the strips are actually connected to the flat surfaces, so there are open borders everywhere ! You can fix this by optimising the mesh (points mode, all points selected, Optimize) once you have scaled this scene up a bit, but you must be very careful to set a weld threshold therein, that is suitable for the scale at which you are working. If you do this at the original scene scale Optimize will destroy the mesh completely because threshold is way too high. But once you have it right, optimising does fix and connect the meshes properly, and then I tested both the Normals commands, which work correctly (S26.014). I cannot guarantee the same will be true in your version however, which I believe still has the old versions of these routines before they were re-written for the new core around R23. CBR

You would be mad, on the whole, to try and directly rig any object that is at a sculpt level of detail - it will be an absolutely HORRIBLE time for you if you try and skin millions of polys to a rig. And it won't work anyway because of the sculpting tag ! But don't think you can just get a copy of that without the tag, and carry on - you can't - it's still waaaaay too many polys to bind and expect any sort of viewport speed. So the plan should be to animate the base mesh only, (or perhaps 1 or 2 levels above it, determined in the baking process) having baked the sculpting into the texture so it only appears at rendertime. And baking requires some shit hot UVs so there will need to be a decent unwrap ideally before you bake that. This should help with the overview... CBR

Please upload the model file !!! VERY hard to tell what is causing that without being able to get any information about the polys themselves, other than what we can see on screen, which is almost nothing ! You also need to complete your profile so that we know which version of the software you are working with ! There will be an answer to this problem, and depending on which version of Cinema you are running those Align and Reverse Normals commands are flawless UNLESS there are polys in an error state, in which case it won't be fixable until you have addressed the errors. CBR

I don't have experience with that particular program, but you can expose broken phong edges in Cinema from the right click menu (edge mode, select phong breaks). And repair them using the other commands that follow. You can also try deleting any normal tag that comes in with the clothes, if it doesn't break the surfaces, and of course you can adjust settings within it and the phong tag which may help, but don't delete the latter; that is required, even if the normal tag remains. Would be helpful to see a screenshot of your phong settings, and the sort of errors you are getting... CBR

Ah yes, the grid and flashing rim thing works nicely too... I think the next move would be to split off the walls into a separate object and then give both those and the glass / solid panels independent thickness so that they react properly to light. That doesn't have to be done on an individual panel-by-panel basis if we remember to make sure the gridwork intersects both sides of the glass, meaning light can't bounce from panel to panel out the sides, if you see what I mean. Intersection here will be very clean, and unproblematic at these sorts of scales, unless you are planning to crawl a camera inches over the surface of them. CBR

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