Marc Trzepla

Nice. That Alt-V under View (I was stuck poking around under Filter) looks like it’ll work well. Alt-V (all views), and then on/off the Filter I want to toggle. Done. Thank you, Marc Chep

If I turn on or off an item listed in the Viewport Filter dropdown menu, is there a modifier key I can use to apply this switch to ALL viewports? Right now, if I turn off Fields (for example) in my Perspective view, Fields remain ‘on’ in the Top Front and Right, and I’d rather they turn off as well. The Help file says I can ‘hold down Ctrl/Cmd to enable one option and disable all others,’ but that’s not what I’m looking for. Thanks, Marc Chep

The Top / Bottom / Previous / Next / Root / Parent preference worked out great, thank you both for the ideas.

There are instances when holding Alt or Shift for Generators and Modifiers isn’t best for what I’m trying to do and I wish to create the hierarchy by hand. But if I just click a Generator or Modifier button it gets placed alllllll the way at the top of the Object Mananger - is there a shortcut (similar to using Alt or Shift) that places the new Generator/Modifier down in the hierarchy closer to where I’m working? Scrolling up, grabbing a Generator, and then dragging it all the way back down gets tedious. Thanks, Marc Chep

Unbelievable, thank you. All this time I was searching for the node, double clicking or dragging the search result to the node editor, and THEN trying to drag it in between two already-connected nodes ....... dragging FROM the search results onto the wire is what does the trick. Your answer helped prompt my discovery. Thanks again, Marc Chep

Example - if I have a Texture node already piped into the Base Color of a RS Standard but want to put a TriPlanar in between those two, is there a shortcut way to drop that TriPlanar on the already-connected line/wire to automatically re-route the Texture thru the TriPlanar and then continue to the Standard? Right now I search for TriPlanar, double click it, it appears in the node editor, I then take the Out of the texture (already connected to the Standard Base Color) and connect it to the TriPlanar Image X, and then drag the Out Color of the TriPlanar to the Base Color of the Standard material. Seems like there should be a short-cuttier way here instead of manually dragging node wires each time. Same goes for other things like Color Corrects, etc. Thanks, Marc Chep

While reducing the Size Increment under the Collision tab of the Dynamics Body Tag didn’t change the results, this sent me on a hunt for where else there might be a Size element for the sim ... and I found it as Thickness under the Surface tab of the Cloth Tag that’s doing the ballooning. The default is 1.5cm.. I set it lower and the gap was reduced. I now have to play with the Simulation Substeps etc. to keep intersections from occurring. Thanks for the idea, Marc Chep

I’m running a test that once I like where it ends up I’ll apply to a final logo. My test is an array of 9 spheres, created in a cloner. I have a Balloon tag on the cloner with a bit of overpressure. The spheres inflate. Great. Only problem is that the spheres never touch each other - they smoosh together as if they’re touching, but there’s always a gap even though the one place I thought to look for Collider settings is set to Triangles and not Convex/Box/etc... Where/what’s the setting that reduces/removes this gap? Thanks, Marc Chep

Thank you both for these suggestions ... great thought starters on how to approach this.

How can I achieve this material-reveal effect within Redshift using a light(s) without having to render passes for Materials A, B, plus the matte, comping externally? Basically, “Is Spotlight Light 1 making me bright? Material A. No Spotlight Light 1? Material B.” Thanks, Marc Chep

I find that when I render with Redshift any surface that’s been camera projection mapped (baked UVs or not) appears 1000% fine in the viewport, but is all janky in the final render. I have found this is related to the quantity of triangles in the surfaces with distortions - if I start with a low poly count plane and go through the effort to heavily subdivide the plane, the distortion lessens and starts to closer match the original plate. To add to the confusion, the C4D Standard renderer renders perfectly fine with the lower polygon count surfaces, no subdivision required, also matching the original plate / viewport. Anyone know why this is happening and how to remedy this, while staying in Redshift, without having to subdivide surfaces? Having to pop out of Redshift is frustrating (there’s no Convert to Standard Material tool that I’m aware of meaning I have to re-create surfaces as Standards) and subdividing only adds another to-do to the pile. Thanks, Chep

If I have a beauty pass file named “ABCDE.exr” and want the corresponding cryptomatte AOV file (rendered Direct) to be named “ABCDE_cryptomatte.exr” so I can identify the relationship between the two files, what should I enter for Base Filename under Redshift -> AOV so I get “ABCDE” (in this example) automatically? I have little experience with tokens and tend to favor manually setting my Save (Multi-Pass Image) filename manually, but I’d like the accompanying direct AOV (cryptomatte in this case) to be named automatically. I’ll be up front .. I’m new to AOVs, never had a need, and want to start using cryptomattes, but have little to no experience cooking them out. As an example of my not-knowing-what-I’m doing, it took me forever to realize that the reason I wasn’t getting a cryptomatte .exr file at all after rendering was because Base Filename in Redshift -> AOV was blank .. which, until I populated it with some text, never occurred to me since the Effective Path under the Cryptomatte AOV suggested I’d get a file output. Taking a cue from Cryptomatte’s Direct Path variables ($filepath$filename_$pass), I tried entering “$filename” but ended up with a file named “$filename_cryptomatte.exr”. I know, I’m a mess. Thanks, Marc

I thought at first the white was in response to a Dark interface in Windows, but even toggling to Light didn’t affect C4D’s interface value or the white unselected color. So I trashed R25’s preferences - at least I got the unselected mesh to go back to black. That Selected orange is still there, but I think I’ll now take your suggestion and tweak the Selected Object / Shaded Wire colors. Curious - was Selected Object in R21 ALSO orange and I changed it? I can’t recall. Thanks again for the help above,

The most recent version of C4D I own is still R21 but I now have a chance to dip my toe into modern day with R25. I’ve had R21 for so long I honestly cannot recall how much of the working colors were customized by me (as opposed to the default) and am a little off kilter with the working colors in R25. So - before I start pulling threads in the Prefs Interface Colors , is there a Display-ish, check-boxy panel I’m missing that would get me closer (back to) the way I’ve been working in R21 where unselected wireframes are black, selected objects are white, and selected edges (or polys or points) are orange? My old brain is fighting me on this. Thanks,

Thank you everyone, sorry for the delay .. I never get reply alerts. Un-checking Isoline Editing did the trick.

(First off, I don’t often model in C4D, so maybe I just don’t know what I’m doing. Let’s get that out of the way) Sometimes it’s easier for me to grab and manipulate the points of the original source “cage” mesh when working with subdivision surfaces, but I cannot select them when the SDS modifier is enabled. Only the corresponding point on the subdivided mesh is selectable. Is it possible to select the source mesh points when SDS is on? Thanks,

I often get complex and pointy logos from a client - extruding these logos works fine with default inside beveling. When I add outside bevels, the pointier parts with low-value acute angles will (understandably) get all long and spikey. Is there a checkbox in the Bevel modifier I've missed all this time that can replicate Illustrator? In the past I've made micro rounds by hand in Illustrator or used the Chamfer tool on the splines, but wondered if there was a non-destructive solution. (faked mockup below) Thanks,

Thank you for the reply - in the end I remade the Collider object to be a little less geometrically busy and it seems to have solved this.

I have a linear matrix as my source for a voronoi fracture. The objects that are smaller than the matrix interval are behaving individually, instead of as a collection. I've tried lobbing everything under a Connector thinking the fracture would "see" it as one big mesh, but this didn't work. Suggestions?

R21. I have a collection of objects under an On Collision Rigid Body tag being crashed into by a Collider object - quite a few of the Rigid Body objects are ending up inside the Collider. Not all - the rest fly away as I expect them to. I.... Checked the Collider - its normals are facing out... Up'd the Steps Per Frame in the project Dynamics panel... Changed the scale from 100 cm to 1000 cm etc.. Fiddled with the Bounce and Friction for both the Collider and the Rigid Bodies ... Tried different Shapes - Automatic, Box, Static Mesh .. No improvement. It'd be one thing if I started at least seeing fewer objects getting caught up inside the Collider, giving me clues about what was causing this, but nothing's changing for the better. Any suggestions? Yeah, my impression is that newerererer versions of C4D have improved Dynamics, but I have to stick with what I have for now. Thank you, Marc

This worked out perfectly. (in the end I set my gradient knots to Step to make it a little easier to visualize the distribution) Thank you for the reply, Marc

If I have 3 objects in my Cloner but I don't want even distribution (33% of Object A, 33% of Object B, and 33% of Object C) ... how can do this? I know I can put duplicates of a particular object in the Cloner (say, 10 copies of Object A, 1 of Object B, and 1 of Object C), but figure there might be a more elegant way. Thanks, Marc

Imashination Yeah, I tried disabling Sampling and Anti-Aliasing but never got pixel-perfect results. MJV I gave Standard (and later Physical) a shot with the Background .. I agree with your “closest” assessment with the Background object, though it never quite became “perfect”. Looking for “10” and I'm getting “9.94”. Mike A I'm actually not looking to do a composite in C4D - my turning to the Background object in the end was just to test whether pixel-perfect was possible at all and, if it was, to then backtrack to the mesh I was eventually placing the texture on to get the same results. Client has given me a graphic that gets partially distorted on a surface and the portions that aren't distorted are rendering out with the looks-like-it-was-slightly-scaled fuzziness and I'm being called out on it. Said I would look into it and fix it. Ultimately I'll probably end up generating a matte to exclude the non-deformed surface and re-apply those portions in post but thought I'd check here first because I thought, “surely I should be able to get something as simple as a 1-to-1 texture to work.” Thank you, all.

I'd like to render out a background with its texture pixel-perfect and cannot get C4D to do this. My source texture is 1920 x 1080 and made up of a 1-pixel grid of black lines on a white background. The render settings are for a 1920 x 1080 output, but every render looks like the texture is being scaled. Tried multiple camera types - perspective, parallel, and Front. No improvement. Tried having the texture on a plane (saw in the manual that the magic number for a Parallel camera is 1024, so my object size was 1024 x 576), as well as a Background object. No improvement. Started with Redshift, switched to Standard, same looks-like-the-texture-is-being-scaled results. Used UV, Flat, and Camera projections, no improvement. I fiddled with the antialias settings to test my “looks-like-the-texture-is-being-scaled” guess - which, on a 1-to-1 render, shouldn't come into play - and saw that choosing something other that MIP altered the results slightly. Even turning off antialiasing completely didn't produce the expected results. Attached shows an enlarged crop of the upper left-hand corner of the 1920 x 1080 source image and crops of the test renders. Am I crazy? Why can I not bring an image into C4D and spit it back out looking exactly like it came in? Thanks,

Unbelievable how my eyeballs went straiiiiiight past that and only saw the interpolation pulldown. Great to know that's there.