HappyPolygon

I'm not sure if the "technical demo" was a forced (marketing) move due to the release of Blender Geometry Nodes but it definitively was the best move since that gave MAXON the biggest possible feedback. Up until then every new feature was tested exclusively indoors or with close NDA collaborators. Introducing such a big feature (that would definitely be called a module back in 2010) needed a bigger audience, not just people who worked in the field for decades. And the next iteration of Scene Nodes in R25 was a huge improvement. You got an iteration node or conversion node for free when connecting specific nodes together saving you from aimless debugging or logical dead-ends. There's a Scene Root default node. Better search algorithm and of course capsules. Well, I'm not 100% sure if this is really an open question. In order to define the system as Turing-complete you have to define it in mathematical terms and prove or disprove the original hypothesis. From my point of view if there are no equivalent structures between nodes and coding like variables, if, while-do, case etc. then it's probably not Turing-complete (and to be clear, commands like if, while-do, case have nothing to do with the Turing-completeness theorem). My first struggle was with variables. You can define a constant and feed that anywhere but you can't store a value back to it. There's only an output. Maybe I'm wrong and everything does have an equivalent node structure and I'm the one that fails to recognize because I'm not used to alternative paradigms especially plethoric in expression (more than one node/statement). I think nodes are on the right track. They are getting constant feedback and introducing new Capsules like the latest Spline chamfer. Bit by bit all the old handy plugins will be replaced by native tools. I believe that even Ricochet can be reconstructed using scene nodes. The big question is whether Scene Nodes will compete with Geometry Nodes face-to-face providing what C4D is best known for (intuitiveness) combined with the quality and power of Houdini. We expect a lot of improvements in all aspects of C4D but due to NDAs all will be reveled at the right time. And of course God willing concerning war and natural disasters...

The Volume Builder/Mesher is probably the only complete feature in C4D. For everything else there is room for improvement.

Since R23 there was a discussion about how Scene Nodes were supposed to actually help things out. The discussion was mainly philosophical because from the existential point of view (why are Scene Nodes even needed in the first place) there wasn't much backing up of the idea. It seemed that the main reason Scene Nodes were developed was the constant expressed opinion of the public wanting a node-based modeling system like Houdini, just because Houdini is king in CG production (Blender is also known for it's own system but Geometry Nodes were released some months after Scene Nodes so I don't think Blender was a factor). The new (Neutron) project had pitfalls for the following reasons, making the result look like a failure : The public demanding a node-based system had a false perception of what that would look like and how it would work. Mainly because most of them didn't even know how Houdini works, they just knew it was "better". Also many of them (users) weren't familiar with XPresso or Material nodes. So when the system was finally delivered the learning curve seemed overwhelming. Considering the poor documentation made things worse. Many users already knew that a node-based modeling/animation system's biggest advantages are the procedural and parametric characteristics. What they failed to acknowledge was that C4D already had the capability of procedural and parametric setups due to the powerful Object Manager, something that other DCCs are trying to replicate. Considering the above MAXON added the Capsule system. A bridge between the Object Manager and Scene Nodes. Now we know why Scene Nodes are needed and these are the following: Not all C4D operations are procedural or parametric. These operations are positioned mainly in Tools, Mesh and Spline menus. These are operations that are not stackable in the Object Manager. Best examples are the Inset, Extrude, Bevel and Bridge operations. Scene Nodes provide a better space (2D) than the Object Manager (linear) to accommodate for complex groups of operations AND procedural/parametric operations that are not available in the OM. Scene Nodes offer capabilities that XPresso couldn't like UV/color management during modeling and some attribute manipulation mostly with instances that was impossible before. A better graph structure. XPresso had a less restrictive brunching structure which made it prone to logic conflicts when same attributes were manipulated simultaneously by many operations. Scene nodes are less prone to these kind of conflicts due to their "one-way" structure. Personally I have seen very few occurrences of cyclic structures (infinite loop) in Scene Nodes and when that happens it immediately gets detected. The ability to construct new parametric primitives. The ability to construct new tools without diving deep in the C4D Python API. Procedural modelling. Points that are yet to be resolved: Visual aid on selections. Boolean Operations. A better category system to provide better housing for the expanding number of nodes. (sub-categories for example or a tier-based metadata tag filter to better serve users with different experience or type of work (newbies want to see only capsules, techies want the low-level structure nodes) Access to specific Capsules from any custom pallet (I think it has been solved but not sure) More high-level nodes for complex operations (the "bad" thing is that MAXON tries to construct high-level nodes from low-level nodes and not just hard-code new nodes, this is time consuming because it leads to technical difficulties) Nodes are harder to update. I'm talking about high-level nodes like Dual-mesh. It's not the same thing as adding new features to an existing coded feature. Although nodes are scalable, adding new features/mechanics in an existing structure can be much trickier compared to coding. Faster loading times when the node pool is summoned. Make scene nodes a high-level workspace for procedural and generative modeling by adding mechanics to accommodate specific needs. For example Adaptive Grid Space for asset placement - used to create procedural cities, buildings etc. Terrain modeling tools - diffusion, erosion, terrace and many more modifiers are easier to work with in a 2D node space rather in OM. Agent system - for crowd animation, traffic animation or simulating flocks of birds, schools of fish etc. Some philosophical issues still remain open: If Capsules are used like deformers in the OM, why still use them as such and not hard-code them later as regular Deformers adding more functionality to them like having Dual Mesh affect certain regions of geometry using Fields ? Should all features be mirrored as nodes in the node pool ? For example instead of dropping a Cloner in the Scene Node space from the Object Manager, just drop it from the node pool, because you don't want to have the cloner or any other hierarchy chain of native C4D elements in the OM, you just want the result to manifest from the Scene Nodes. Should Selection Strings be adopted to the rest of the app or evolve into a better system with all the benefits from Selection Strings and the usual Selection form ? Should custom icons be made for most nodes in the Geometry Modifiers category ? (what's the point of having the same icon if the icon is not used for identification) Should there be a ready-made Palette with deformer-like capsules and primitive-like capsules for users to select from without having to open Scene-Nodes ? (helps new users to know all available geometry manipulation options making features look system-agnostic (I call systems all node systems and the python interfaces)) Is Scene Nodes Turing-complete ? This levels Neutron with programming. If the system is Turing-complete that means that anything that can be programmed can also be translated to nodes. This is very important because it can save you from chasing your own tail. If I know that something is possible with Python and that Scene Nodes is Turing-complete then I can make the attempt to implement it using Scene-Nodes. This tread has forked more than any other thread 🤣

But you've already did that back in October... is this faster or did you update the project into a capsule ?

I found 2 hours late the new VFX and Chill broadcast today. They tried replicating the exact same scene as you... I we were watching it we could provide some useful insight cause they seem quite lost and didn't really bother making their homework about how exactly they were originally made before trying to tackle the scenes they picked...

Yes, and all modeling tools like extrude, weld, bridge, cut ...

Please fill the appropriate info in your profile. Your case looks like a very good opportunity for the Volume Builder/Mesher to shine. Especially the latest C4D version has the very useful Radius blend. After that you can polish the topology with the ZRemesher from the Remesh generator. It can definitely be modeled using the traditional tools with a Subdivision Surface finish but you need some prior experience. I would not recommend any Boolean operations for this kind of modeling. Do you need a step-by-step guide ? If yes, @Cerbera is our modeling professor. P.S. You forgot to upload the file you mention, unless you're referring to the image.

Before the new update comes available you can try out this HDRI 360 panorama creator. The output is at 1024x512 but you can upscale it using this handy AI resizer https://bigjpg.com/ Currently the output is not seamless but this is expected to be patched in the next version.

What I had in mind was an animated shader. But, yes, it's not meant for interactions between objects unless they can figure out a way to bake the displacement and have it run as a simulation from a point on.

I believe the next evolutionary step to Pyro is implementing a Volumetric Displacement shader like Arnold. I think it's less computationally intensive to have a shader-based volume displacement rather a simulation driven one.

looks perfect to me. Does it work for any polygons ?

What did you use as an emitter ? It looks like a weird static pattern like single points traveling with the spaceship emitting smoke... The first attempts looked better... Out of curiosity if I had the time I would recreate it using the old Pyroclasters ... The original scene had fire and smoke turn into white vapors. That could be easily recreated using the Age attribute...

Digital twin firm Geopipe has made its 3D reconstruction of New York City available to download for free. Users can download any part of the city, which includes both buildings and terrain, as a lightweight textured model in common 3D formats including FBX, OBJ and glTF, for use in DCC applications and game engines. Geopipe specializes in AI-based reconstruction of real-world cities from satellite and geospatial data, for use in games, simulations, training and architectural visualization. As a sample of its data, the firm lets users download any part of its reconstruction of New York City – it covers all five boroughs, including Staten Island – for free. It’s possible to download the data in FBX, OBJ, gtTF/GLB or Collada format, for use in DCC apps like Blender, 3ds Max, Cinema 4D, Maya or Houdini, or as an OSG file for use in geospatial applications. Actually generating the download consumes credits – you get 180,000/month for free – with the number of credits used increasing in proportion to the land area you’re reconstructing. https://www.geopipe.ai/download

Well the moment of truth has come ...

I have just found out about this: https://www.pdhowler.com/WhatsNew.htm

Sure In the material Editor you create a Gradient from the small arrow (v) near the Texture... option. Once you do that click on the small b/w preview. Once you do that you can edit the gradient shader. By clicking the small arrow next to the Gradient title you expand the color knot options. After you've set the the colors and positions as shown in the image below you right click on the color band to see extra knot distribution options. Under the Interpolation of all Knots choose Step. Once You do that you'll see no intermediate hues between knots. After you've assigned your material on your object double click on the material tag Go to the Assign tab, right-click on the tag assigned to that particular object and choose Select Tag There you have different projection mapping options. Currently the object will look like this : But if you change the Length V you will see the shader repeating along the object. The Offset V parameter will offset the shader along the objects length so animating that will loop the tiled shader. Here's this very simple example : V Offset animation.c4d

Is there a particular reason you chose to use individual cylinders wrapped on a spline path instead of using a simple gradient shader with no interpolation between colors and simple keyframe offset of UVs on Y or X axis ? In other words, why solve a material problem with a geometry solution ?

Thankyou @Zerosixtwosix. I would never have thought of this workaround.

Could you provide a scene example ? I couldn't make your instructions to work. Do I need some other existing elements to see the effect like An inheritance effector ?

They aren't !? I thought all these were planned to be part of the 2023.2 release in March !

Nice one, it took a while for me to understand how it worked.

The behavior of multiple clones moving from a single point in space to multiple points (resembles an inheritance effector) but doing it one cloner at a time based on their IDs and within a controlled time-interval.

Dithering is used to "scramble" pixels of an image with limited color space in order to hide that limitation from the human eye. Use dithering if you notice "banding" effects

Has anyone ever used this plugin ? Do you know what happend ? Was it free ? What was the latest C4D release it supported ? And most important : How would you recreate the affects in latest C4D ?

I think this is normal when rendering hard-edged bump maps. Try to blur/soften the texture a bit.