HappyPolygon

Nice one ! I have no idea what's going on in that XP. I guess it moves some instances away from the particle and then just connects them through the Tracer. That Tracer gave me an other idea ... What if we had that oscillating electron emit particles and had the Tracer connect those particles ? The resulting spline would be quite close to sine wave plus we could use some type of force to disperse the particles as they move further to emulate something close to the real lobes ! something like a local vortex just enough to give the desired shape after leaving the force field. Jed could you make an adjustment and use two opposing oscillating electrons and see if they create something similar to the lobe ? But don't make it periodic, just one full oscillation. The Tracer will not close the lobes if they are more than one. If you succeed creating just one closed loop as depicted then maybe we could use some kind of mechanism to create more with, idk, a time effector or delay effector? to make copies of that single lobe animation but with a delay. Then just put that spline in a lathe and you have it ! a 3D representation of a wave. I wish there was a simple cartesian Formula Generator in C4D, for me to simply just type F(x) = a*x^2 + b*x + c and have a spline parabola. I've begged them for something like that (OK it wasn't so simple as I've essentially suggested a full implementation of the Microsoft Math app 😛 ). But yeah... i've seen so many equations that I'd like to play with them inside C4D (especially some minimal surfaces) but I just don't get this: or this: And when I saw Jed's project gif I thought he managed to make the Formula Spline animate ! I've been trying to make animatable for 2 hours yesterday and failed ! Anyway ... I've asked them for something to make fractals and they gave us the MoSpline... Maybe the Formula Generator is under construction as we speak with a fancy name like Equation Mesher...

@Igor My proposal is to keep the paywall but let people see the content of the website for free. Currently everything is behind closed doors, no one can see what exactly we are doing here. Only those who want to comment or post a topic should have to pay a membership. This way we keep unwanted firestarters and trolls away. I don't think there would be someone willing to pay just to have the ability to rant for anything. You will also have a worthy revenue because more people will be willing to pay the small annual subscription just to post their question having seen the quality of help in this site.

Best I could do was this Untitled 1.c4d but o don't like it. I'll try something different later

Nice topic. I always imagined electromagnetic waves as isolated photons with the classic 2-wave form... But you are talking about an antenna emitting an E/M wave across all directions. The oscillation of those waves create lobes that you refer to as "loops" due to their movement and it's very well described in this video: Oh my God now those signal icons make much more cense ! For simplicity the following animation https://javalab.org/en/electromagnetic_wave_en/ uses isolated coupled waves propagating in 10 directions. Using this example you could replicate a somewhat 3D wave in C4D using a Loft to connect all electric field sinewave splines resulting in a rippling disc. But for the magnetic field ... ... you don't have to Loft those waves. Just double the Electric field disc and rotate it 90 to be perpendicular to the electric field. Now you have one bidirectional wave. Make 4 more instances of it and rotate them to match the positions of the green lines of the image above. You are left with only one problem to solve and I hope some one more familiar with the parametric equation system of C4D can help: Make a reverse dampening oscillation function. You need it to have the function cover more area as it gets further from the source. As I mentioned. this was the "simple" example. The advanced example does not contain any kind of mathematical function that describes the lobe forms. And even if it did C4D does not support this type of equations (polar, complex or parametric). My best guess is to use deformers to fake this natural phenomenon. Use Taper to dampen or empower your waves. Use the Spherify deformer on "straight" lobes to make them curve and expand as they travel further from the source.

When I first found out about C4D I thought the name implied some 4th dimension graphics .... Around 2006 I found a C4D plugin that created a hypercube. It was faked though but I learned how the target tag worked. Here's how one can animate a hypercube. And a nice opening of the movie Cube2: Hypercube. Never found out how they did the final scene.

I think you refer to the Attribute Manager changing when selecting multiple objects... If you click on the Lock icon on the top left of the Attribute Manager after selecting your Laser Scanner object the tab will not show any other parameters except for that object only. You can then select all your nulls and drop them all at once on the points list.

In the following quick tip Elly explains how to use vertex maps to transition between two materials. It doesn't matter it's a RS tutorial, it's also the same for the native Material Editor. But vertex maps use grayscale maps. This allows for only two material assignments. I know there are color vertex maps, I think they are mostly been used for bone weighting. Recently they've been used with the latest Fields improvements as shown below (and weirdly not publicized at all in the west, the only one I've found in English was this😞 (Wonder if she is the Asian equivalent of Elly...) But all color vertex map examples still affect only color. Not material blending. Did I miss something and there is some way to assign different materials to different colors of the vertex map ?

I've been watching this VFX break-down and some of their decisions have been puzzling me... I'd like to know your opinion. 1) Obviously there is a real set. so why recreate everything in CG ? 2) What was wrong with the actor and had to re-comp him in a different position ? Maybe he was a bit closer to the center and had to move him further to the left for symmetry but... couldn't they just reshoot the scene ? Where they so clumsy to really not pay attention to the position of the actor in the actual take ? Is it really that cheaper to fix anything in CG rather than re-shooting ? They obviously had to reshoot the actor since in the comp he's in a new pose (unless he's CG). 3) Why make a proxy prop of the book and not just make a nice real prop and then use the real prop as reference for the CG version ? Obviously there is nothing magical going on with the book in this close-up so there is no need for a CG replacement. The proxy looks weird... Could it be that they designed the book differently and later decided to change it ? 3) This decomposition of the layers used for the I-don't-know-how-to-call-them orbs look totally unrelated. Unless they meant to show different concept versions of the orbs, I don't see how the first two stacks could result to the third... But this makes no cense in a VFX break-down. All the above seam to me a great waste of money, time and effort for the CG studio to bare for wrong decisions of the director. And it does remind me some reports on how hard it is to work for Marvel.

Is your surface animated ? If it is, it's more intuitive to use a cloner for the placement. The "bad" thing is that in order to make precise placements you kneed to make relations. For example to place your objects precisely on certain areas of polygons you would need to create a new point on that polygon (essentially creating more polygons) and use that point as a selection input for the cloner. If the object is placed on point selections they won't follow the curvature of the surface though... to remedy that you'll have to use polygon selections. Also don't forget to place the pivot point of your objects to their base of placement, easy to do using the Geometry Axis Capsule. If your object is parametric you can use the Correction Deformer to make the polygon selections unfortunately there is a bug in 2023 preventing you doing that as mentioned here.

Have you seen HRVOJE's post? He replicated it using SceneNodes.

I just changed the Mode to Noise and set Animation Speed and Scale to 0. And animated the Rotation from your value to 0 over the 3 sec. Is this the type of movement you'd like to have ? (Tested in R20, don't have RS and deleted all incompatible tags) random deformer issue test.c4d

The Null object is redundant. You can use just the deformer under the object. I don't use C4D 2023, and I tested it under R20. After you make your selection don't forget to move the tag to the Cube. Maybe you forgot this step. If this is how your setup looks like then I'm afraid 2023 has a bug. Here's a test file from R20. correction test.c4d

I don't see any reason to use the Connect object instead of a simple Null... The simplest way I can think of is the following: Move the Pivot Point of both arrows on their base (where they meet the loop) Group all arrows and loop and set keyframes for the rotating animation on the Group object. Then set your timeline back to zero, select both of your arrows and set rotation keyframes at the same time points as you did with the loop. Using the global coordinates when selecting an arrow, overwrite each of the keyframes with the pitch parameter set to 0. Do the same for the other arrow but this time set the pitch to 180. This way you essentially counter-rotate the arrows with the same amount for each time interval. Alternatively set a Target tag for each of the arrows and use two nulls as a targets placed very high above the scene and very low below it.

I've found this one using particles driven by pyro.

What exactly are you trying to achieve ? We already have particles. We can use instances on particles... Do you need to make the particles move along with the fire ? I've recently seen this. Not sure if this is your goal.

At their forum there have been quite a few complaints about the app not responding in the past. I guess this is something usual. You can either issue the problem (yellow banner link) or check it weekly. I've seen AI pages like this go down due to many requests to the server , I guess it's the same with this.

Try GauGAN2 Beta from the link at the bottom of the page

ALL IN ONE LINK http://www.cgchannel.com/2022/11/best-black-friday-and-winter-2022-deals-for-cg-artists/?fbclid=IwAR3Ty9H4-2xF7h8zdZLiI6zsAigXO0Y7clHC44WrwXy1VmzFqejRacX_zTg

I overlooked that detail. Scrap everything I said. Use only Booleans. The material of each bool component is inherited to the final geometry. Don't use any materials on the Boole generators. Even the spherical "shell" can be made with bool. The set up should look like this: Bool (subtract) # Makes the hole |_ Circle |_ Bool (subtract) # Makes the shell |_ Sphere Outer |_ Sphere Inner

Maybe using a weight map instead of a field could me the collision less "smooth". https://help.maxon.net/c4d/en-us/Default.htm#html/OCACOLLISIONDEFORMER-ID_CA_COLLISION_GROUP_COLLIDERS.html?TocPath=Create%20Menu%7CDeformer%20object%7CCollision%20Deformer%7C_____4

Maybe use the Wrap Object deformer in Cylindrical mode ? Or use the Collider Deformer with a convex surface ...

You can either model it exactly like the physical object or fake it. If you want to model it physically just project one texture on the one side of each prism-like pattern (using polygon selection), and the other texture on the other side of the prisms. This can be very easy if you first make the polygon selections as simple stripes on a plane before elevating the intermediate points to make the prisms. Or you could just fake it by animating a gradient mask between the two textures inside the color channel of the Material Editor itself. I guess you could also rig an XPresso to make the gradient shift from one side to the other depending on the rotation of the object but it's a bit more complex and also not physical as the gradient shift should be depending on the camera position relative to the object and not the object itself...

The Solidify capsule does the same thing if you don't mind beveling options.

I think this is the purpose of the Constraint Tag. https://help.maxon.net/c4d/en-us/Default.htm#html/TCACONSTRAINT.html?TocPath=Object%20Manager%7CTags%20Menu%7CRigging%20tags%7CConstraint%7C_____0

HRVOJE has created a neat Linear Boundary Cloner here among other cool staff.