Відео

I don't really work with fbx files but my guess would either be that it's an issue with the uv mapping or that the normals need to be flipped.

@@robojojo4778 I flipped th normals but nothings changes, what to do with the uvs? Do you have any suggestions?

@@jubayerahmed5732 Unfortunately I don't really know enough about UV mapping to give you specific advice but I'd recommend seeking help in 3d modelling and texturing communities (Reddit, Discord, etc.)

Thank you!

Glad you like it!

Very glad it was helpful!

Glad it helped!

It sounds like a shader field would be better for what you're trying to do. There should be plenty of resources on it but I'd recommend searching it on Cineversity as there's a good intro there.

Thank you very much!

Not sure if I know exactly what you mean but try increasing the saturation of the red in the emission portion of the material. If you're driving the emission color with fields like later in the tutorial then try increasing the saturation of the red in the ramp. If that doesn't work, your Emission Weight might be too high. That setting is directly below the Emission color and the higher it is, the lighter the center of the material will be (because it's trying to mimic what lights look like as they get brighter).

You're welcome!

You should be able to pipe the User Integer Data into the Mul node and then pipe that result into the offset or rotate input under General/UV/Remap of the texture. In my experiments I did find I had to change from mograph object ID to Object ID and back to get it to show up in the render though. I had to do it a few times in fact. Check out the end of this video if you need the clarification on that. You could also pipe values directly into the Material node inputs. Pretty much any of them that accepts a numerical value. However, different properties have different ranges for their values so you have to experiment with what multiplier you use to find something that works well. Hope this helps!

@@robojojo4778 Hey, that worked for the most part. I initially used it on the Offset of the texture, but nothing was changing. And then I used it for the Rotate of the texture, and that created a lot of variation. For some reason the Offset function has not been working for me in general on various projects for some reason. Anyway, it's not ideal in my case to use the rotate. I would rather have the texture offset, but rotate will do. Thanks for your help, and great video!

@@neil5819 A year later... But I am using C4D 2024 + Redshift and this solve is still the only thing that works... Plugging into the Offset does not work for me. Rotate works great though. (im actually using this method on a Fracture object, not a Cloner... but It works for me just as well on a Cloner).

Glad it was helpful!

Thanks!

Thanks so much! I really appreciate it!

Thank you! I really appreciate it!

I would probably use the new one, and maybe explain the difference between the interfaces on the go if needed

@@JulianZett3D That's seems like a good approach and probably what I'll end up doing. Thanks for the advice! :)

Yeah it's not ideal for sure. Hopefully people like me who are using older versions will still find it useful but it's definitely putting a kink in my plans for future Redshift tutorials. Do I use the old interface or new interface? I suppose I could demonstrate both but that seems tedious.

@@robojojo4778 I would say make it more future relevant by using the new interface. After all, there's more resources available to find something in the old UI than the new UI right now. Also you will eventually be going back and forth if new features aren't brought to the old UI anyway. My opinion.

@@pnksmigge5324 Those are very good points! Now I just have to convince myself to not be too lazy to upgrade.

@@robojojo4778 same (: it was much easier to convince you than myself :) (although I did switch)

Absolutely! Any particular topics you'd like to see?

Thanks! It's definitely something I've thought about doing. I'm working on something else right now so it won't be the next video but it's definitely a possibility for the future.

Unfortunately no. I tried experimenting with a few ideas and couldn't find a way to do it purely with vertex maps. You could however still blend the vertex map with a noise (that's set up the same way as in the tutorial) using a Color Layer node. Then use that output as your blend layer. That would add some variation. You could use the integer user data node and some expresso nodes to feed in random values for pretty much any property of a material for further variation. Apologies if this wasn't helpful for your specific situation.

Thanks for the sub! I'm glad you found it helpful :)

Thanks! It's always nice to hear that someone got something out of one of my videos!

Thanks for the feedback! I'm still experimenting with content and it's good to hear what people want

Thanks!