mrittman

Thanks @bezo, I appreciate the input man! I think I got something usable. Essentially a condition of another condition lol. I was gonna do something with XGroups, but I think that is unnecessary in my case. Yeah I've seen that animation 🙂 It's really really well done. I was just gonna do a similar version in my style. I kinda cheated a little bit with the modeling. It is my own model, but I found a CAD model online that I based it off of. Still a ton of work to remodel it, but it certainly helps to get things in proportion when you have a CAD model to use as reference. You can see my progress on my YouTube community page: https://www.youtube.com/c/MattRittman/community

Hey guys, I am rigging the rotation of a gun hammer, and wondering if there's a better, more organized approach to this. The hammer's rotation is essentially driven by a bunch of different conditions, as highlighted in the red boxes. Like for example, it starts on the far left and the hammer's rotation is driven by my user data I've created. If the hammer is at 100%, then the bolt carrier will drive the hammer rotation. Then it just keeps going to the next set of condition nodes. If you look at my user data controls (upper left), I've got a Rifle Model selection. If I choose a different model, the hammer rotation will need an almost entirely different set of condition nodes. If you look at my image, I have all my xpresso nodes inside its own XGroup to keep organized. I think I can just add an "On" port to the last Hammer rotation node to essentially disable everything if I have a particular Rifle Model selected in my user data. Anyway, I'm probably making this WAY more complicated than it needs to be. If anyone has any tips, it would really be appreciated!

Definitely agree with Mike on this. I do think S26 was certainly a step in the right direction. It brings a lot of value to the software. I love the idea of nodes/capsules and the capability they provide. But yeah, I’m curious, will there actually be a performance boost when it’s all said and done? I also think Maxon should be more transparent about the whole core/nodes progress. I feel like we’re at least owed that. I understand it’s a very time consuming process, and will be implemented through several versions. But talks of the core rewrite started with R16. We are really in the dark. Like are we talking at least another 10 years? Again I’m not trying to devalue all the work the devs put into C4D. It really is amazing software, and I’m always so anxious to see what is added with each release. But for the asking price, it would sure be nice to not be left in the dark.

Yeah I gotta say, this is a very impressive update. A lot of great modeling enhancements I’m excited for. And just a lot of nice QoL updates in general. The new simulation framework gets me excited for the future. Great work on this release Maxon!

I use Corona for all my animations 🙂 https://youtube.com/c/MattRittman

Agreed. I'm still on R21. I have very low expectations based on recent releases. Really unfortunate that Maxon has gone from actually pleasing its users, to pleasing its stockholders. We've been screaming for years now of a revamped particle system, xpresso updates, better modeling tools, integrated Redshift, etc. Instead we get Magic Bullet Looks, ProRender removal, a polarizing Asset Browser, and a confusing UI refresh. I like some of the new icons, but this still needs some work. Needs a bit more color, instead of a mostly gray palette. It's just very difficult to justify the price they're asking, vs the features we're getting. I understand this might sound a bit harsh, but I want to be honest. Really not trying to discredit all the work the devs put into this software. I understand they work their butts off. But at the same time, the asking price doesn't justify what users are getting.

Yeah, and I thought I came close by figuring out you can drag objects into the Modeling Axis manager, as you can see here by dragging a guide in. Unfortunately it's still going to angle the polys that are touching. Need to keep them horizontal somehow. Is there a plugin that allows you to align points to a spline or something? I suppose I could turn on snapping and move each one individually, but that's not very intuitive.

Someone shared with me that even Blender has tools for this kind of operation.

Hey guys, wondering if there's any way to modify this script to also work on angled surfaces? I also tried this script, but it changes the angle of the surrounding polys as well. Would love to be able to do this but also keep the surrounding edges parallel.

@BLSmithSpent quite a bit of time trying to get a better grasp on Pythagorean Theorem, and found a nice little equation to calculate where the piston should be. I used this information to plug into xpresso, and essentially re-wrote how it's calculated. The whole piston setup can now be rotated where need be. I had to fool around with a lot of the axis rotation of objects, but this thing should be solid! No lag. Springs and whatnot should be right where they're supposed to be at the given time. Here's a demo video: https://www.dropbox.com/s/y7ialakr6p8felm/carb-rig.mp4?dl=0 And here's the updated file: https://www.dropbox.com/s/21cr6hy8c831f3s/GOVERNOR 00 PREP R25 V18 C4DCAFE V7 CBR_matt4.c4d?dl=0 Let me know if you have any questions. Would be happy to answer anything. 🙂

Yeah no guarantees if he's able to help or not though haha. If I don't hear back from him within the next few days, it might be worth hitting him up! No need to send beer money... just happy to help 😃.

Haha thanks so much @Cerbera, that means a lot man! But I think the real credit goes to Julian Field, AKA Expresso Mechanic on YouTube. I would have never figured out the math involved without his vid! For what it's worth, I did reach out to Julian to ask if he knew of a way to move the piston in the proper position. Just waiting to see if he's got a solution to that portion.

Yeah there were quite a few xpresso tags in the original file that could certainly account for the priority issues. However, in my experience, the clamp constraint has always been a bit wonky. Things start jumping around, and it can just cause issues down the line. So that was my reasoning for dropping it altogether.

Sure! Haha I ended up using the method in this video: https://youtu.be/YbNEiO-845Y Not taking credit whatsoever, as I'm certainly no mathematician lol. I just don't know how to move the piston into the proper position. I think it would require a bit more xpresso.

Oh wow thank you so much @Chester Featherbottom! That definitely corrected the issue. Wonder why sRGB is default if Linear actually looks better?

I decided to take a stab at this myself, as this kind of stuff fascinates me! As @Cerbera mentioned, there's definitely some issues with priority going on. Mostly stemming from those darn constraint tags with the piston portion. I got rid of that setup and rigged it with a little Pythagorean magic. This way, we get rid of the lag/priority problem. There's just one issue... the piston rod is now pointing in the wrong direction lol. Apart from that, I think I've got my version pretty solid. The spring connections stay in the holes. The only keyframe is the crankshaft/starter cup. I used squash and stretch to expand/collapse the springs, as opposed to the pose morph. Then some target tags to point them to the governor arm. https://www.dropbox.com/s/17wt1d2ys9mbwn1/GOVERNOR 00 PREP R25 V18 C4DCAFE V7 CBR_matt3.c4d?dl=0 If someone could figure out how to put the piston/rod in the proper position/angle, I think it's pretty much there. Hope this helps! throt.mp4

I've set up a simple rig that changes the cap color of a sweep depending on its "end growth". However, I'm seeing a limitation with the Python node Gradient input port not respecting the Project's Linear Workflow setting. Is this a limitation of the node, or is there another way around this? gradient-sweep.c4d

Okay awesome, this worked great. Thanks again!

@CerberaI was trying another method of just extruding the edges, then rotating each one 45 degrees or so haha. But do you know if there's a way to extrude these without them scaling up? Does that make sense?

Duuuude, thank you so much. I've decided to remodel it haha. Wish I had thought of this method with the twist deformer. It seems I always overcomplicate these things. Thanks again, I always love seeing the way other people do these kinds of things.

Thanks Cerbera, I have attached the file. axis-align.c4d

Having an issue with the Axis Center tool. Just trying to change the alignment of my object axis, but it's also changing the vertex normals direction. Any way to prevent this?

Happy New Year!! 🥳🎉🍾

I definitely agree there should be a license transfer fee, as it uses company resources to do so. I paid the same amount in 2018. However I can't see it taking a Maxon employee more than an hour of his/her time. So yeah I agree, that fee is still quite steep for such a process.

This has been available in C4D for quite some time. They just changed the default functionality. Can be changed by right-clicking a field and choosing a User Interface option. I'll just reiterate what some other folks have said... the UI was the last thing that needed attention in this update. They've got time to update the general UI, but leave the xpresso UI untouched... I reached out about upgrading my perpetual R21 license to R25 perpetual. How can I justify paying $2100 for that? I've compiled a list of features I'd be getting: Slight UV improvements Organized viewport filters (geo only mode) Character pose library Magic Bullet Looks Content/Asset Browser updates Object placement tool UI update I know I've left out some other tools like gltf exporting, delta mush, timeline filtering, deformer indicators, scene nodes (not production ready), python 3, tween tool, etc. But honestly, none of these are absolute game-changers that can justify paying $2100 for. I guess gone are the days of big releases like R20 when we got fields, CAD import, volume builder, node-based materials, updated gradient, etc. Just packed full of useful workflow integrations.