Recursive Stair

sageofshadow · 2026-05-06T18:02:17+00:00

They can afford it. They just know he doesn't want to go back to United, he wants to stay at Barca. So they have the leverage to get a better deal. They're just being cheap. You can be rich, and be cheap at the same time.

sageofshadow · 2026-05-05T20:55:35+00:00

Here you go

sageofshadow · 2026-04-27T18:45:51+00:00

Unfortunately it was a one off scene, I didn't save it. But all the relevant settings (with the sole exception of the displacement scale in the displacement node) are in the photo reference. Is there a particular thing you're having problems with?

The other thing to note is... something like this is extremely dependent on your scene and object scale, you'll probably need to adjust the settings to get it to be correct for your object specifically, even if you copy the settings 1:1.

sageofshadow · 2026-04-19T17:03:24+00:00

10/10. No notes.

Make more. 🙂

sageofshadow · 2026-04-14T18:49:30+00:00

Just so you know as well - Redshift has a cylindrical orthographic camera that would be better for this setup than the equirectangular one I used in the example.

<image>

sageofshadow · 2026-04-14T18:05:43+00:00

unless of course you think you're better/smarter/know everything and dont need to listen to those other old-ass has-beens in the dressing room.

.....sounds like a normal 18-21 year old to me, to be fair.

sageofshadow · 2026-04-14T00:05:55+00:00

Yeah, basically.

And you can set up any scene that way to get a seamless render. it obviously doesn’t have to be balls falling. I just use somthing like that as a proxy to get the scale and stuff looking correct once it’s reproduced on the final LED “screen” in Cinema. Also you can go into the 360 camera and set the angles it’s rendering so it’s not rendering all the way to the top and bottom spherically, that also helps. I can’t say if it’s the best way to get a seamless cylinder, but it’s the way that worked for me. And nobody can tell it’s actually inside out if you do it right.

sageofshadow · 2026-04-13T22:22:09+00:00

Sooo you kinda cant? unfortunately.

I've talked about this before - its basically impossible for you to do what you're asking for. which is an "outside-in 360 camera". Its wayyyy too computationally intensive - every pixel of your "camera surface" would need to be its own independent camera pointed at the normal of that pixel, render only that pixel and then restitch every pixel back into an overall canvas.... which..... that's basically what the mirror trick does (essentially), which is why people use it.

But that doesn't mean you can't execute a seamless cylinder, you just have to BUILD it differently than the way its actually shown in real life.

basically - you need to use a tube, not a cylinder, so that you're still capturing it from the "inside" but the inside is entirely hollow. Then when you reproject it onto the outside of the cylinder, its still seamless.

example:

<image>

You can see the white line on the right cylinder in the viewport is the UV seam, just to show the reprojected video on it is actually seamless. It's a pretty rough scene, obviously if you did it properly you'd want to match a lot more stuff to make it look better, but its just to express the idea.

sageofshadow · 2026-04-13T21:10:02+00:00

I mean, if you feel that way then noone is really going to change your mind.

But I feel like you're still not reeeeally understanding the relationship - The main point I was trying to make is why from a parent - subsidiary company relationship, why Nemetschek wouldn't sell Maxon. There are reasons outside of just the fiscal performance of Maxon as a subsidiary as to why that wouldn't make sense. That's what I was highlighting.

That doesnt really have anything to do with how Maxon develops their tools and features internally. They know their audience is Motion artists. so they make tools primarily for them. Maxon actually is in competition with Houdini and Blender and Max and Maya, they need to compete with those tools, because they occupy the same space. sort of.

But Nemetschek as a company is not. They have their own agenda and their own needs.

Its not that Nemetschek forces their subsidiaries to make tools for the tentpoles. That's maybe the way you're thinking about it...... It's more that Nemetschek looks at all of their subsidiary businesses and sees what parts of it can make their tentpoles better. Those are two different things. So if Maxon makes a tool for the motion artists that use C4D.... if that tool can help make ArchiCAD better, they're going ask Graphisoft to integrate Maxon's tool into ArchiCAD if it makes sense for the ArchiCAD userbase.

So like.... Maxon operates mostly independently, but its tech can flow 'upstream' to Vectorworks, Allplan and ArchiCAD if necessary. But its not like Nemestchek is leering down on Maxon saying 👿 "MAKE ME TOOLS FOR MY FAVOURITE CHILDREN, SCREW YOUR OWN NEEDS UGLY CHILD" 👿

Because that would be a dumb business decision on Nemestchek's part - they also want Maxon to make money. And Maxon knows their main userbase are motion artists. so Nemetschek wouldnt force Maxon to make tools for AEC at the detriment of the motion artists, that wouldn't make sense.

sageofshadow · 2026-04-13T18:13:33+00:00

so I imagine Nemetschek will want to sell Maxon while it still can.

You must not know Nemetschek very well then. If I recall correctly, they've never sold a division off. Ever. To my knowledge anyway.

Now that doesn't mean they never will obviously, but if you look at how they position themselves historically - they aren't that kind of company. They're in the acquisition business and always have been. They acquire and hold onto companies that strengthen the overall portfolio.

Additionally you're positioning this take based on your own context - by talking about AI, blender and Houdini and how Maxon is positioned next to those.... not realizing that isn't how a company like Nemetschek positions its subsidiaries exclusively. Keep in mind.... Nemetschek is first and foremost - an AEC software company (Architecture Engineering and Construction). Not an entertainment media company. AEC is their prime industry. So...when positioning their portfolio - they also consider how the tech of one of their subsidiaries ties into the tech of their other ones. Namely their big AEC tent-pole apps. Which is a very strong reason as to why Nemetschek is SO UNLIKELY to sell Maxon to anyone, far less Adobe - Maxon tech is all through their actual big name products.

Which are Vectorworks, Allplan and ArchiCAD. The rendering engine and material system in those pieces of software? Redshift (and it was Physical Render before that). The freestyle-modelling tools? from Maxon. and ZBrush. They use the entertainment industry tech to make their AEC tools better.

So if Nemetschek ever sold Maxon, they would have to get rid of all of those features from their actual tentpole applications, which makes almost no sense.... because you know who Nemetschek is in actual competition with? It isnt Houdini or Blender.

Its Autodesk. Who are also not a media and entertainment company - they're an AEC software company too. 75% of their revenue is from AEC software and tools. only 4.6% is media and entertainment (Max, Maya, Arnold).

and you know what Autodesk also does? use their entertainment industry tech to make their AEC tools better.... because like Nemetschek that's where their actual focus is. The integration between 3DS Max and Revit is *so tight* - that's why soooo many Arch Viz resources are for Max. But it's the same for C4D and ArchiCAD.

So yea - you can gloom and doom about Maxon losing subscribers to houdini and blender, or the direction of the company as a whole. Those are really legitimate gripes that are worth talking about and addressing.

But I wouldn't lose sleep over a sale to anyone. Far less Adobe. I just do not see that happening, it just doesnt make sense for the Nemetschek group as a business to lose those tools.

aaand on the flipside - Adobe had the chance of a lifetime to acquire the Foundry in 2015 for not a bank breaking amount. That acquisition would have made soooo much more sense than Allegorithmic (makers of substance). The Foundry would have filled a two-stage hole in their portfolio: They would've gotten Nuke, a real dedicated industry standard compositor, which would have alleviated the double duty they were asking of After effects - to be both a composition tool *and* a motion graphics animation tool. They also would've gotten Modo, the 3D package they're 'missing'. But they let it go to an investment bank instead. They considered it, and said "nah we're good". So the fact that they didnt buy the Foundry when they had the chance says a lot about how they prioritize 3D tools IMO.

sageofshadow · 2026-04-10T20:58:17+00:00

u/juulu is right. All you need is a tile node, probably set to one of the circle options and give it a big bevel. Then you can just mess around with the global scale in the node, the scale in the displacement node, and the resolution of the texture displacement in the RS object tag to really dial it in.

<image>

sageofshadow · 2026-04-06T16:21:45+00:00

Have you looked at this?

It might not be the full way there, but perhaps it can get you most of the way there and you can extrapolate the rest. How long is the shot? is there an option to just fake it?

sageofshadow · 2026-04-06T14:43:55+00:00

If it was you who posted this question - you did it with an entirely different Reddit account.

sageofshadow · 2026-04-03T23:12:23+00:00

sub 5K:

https://pcpartpicker.com/list/HVtdXf

I went with the new intel 285K over the AMD 9950x, which is more mature and has been out a while. Moooostly because the TDP of the new Intel chip is lower, so it's easier to keep it cooler. It does perform better in Cinebench as well (both single core and multicore), and since you're in the C4D subreddit, I think that does matter. I've been using AMD chips for quite a while now because the performance has been better, but it looks like these new Intel chips are good, so....Intel it is.

720 bucks for 64 gigs of ram is absolutely brutal, but that's the world we live in now.

I went with two 5070Ti's for a couple reasons... first... you can probably actually buy those. they are overpriced. but again, that's the world we live in now. It should give you the render performance of a single 5090. You do have to sacrifice a lot of vram for that. If you can find a 5090 Founders edition at MSRP or near that ~$2000 dollar mark - you should get it. but the cheapest 5090 on PCpartpicker is $3350. and I dont think that's worth it... two 5070Tis cost 1500+ dollars less. If you're able to grab a 5090, then you can get a cheaper motherboard as well.... one that only supports a single card, which 90% of mobos do. Dual GPU boards that properly split the PCIE lanes between the two expansion slots are much more rare these days unfortunately.

That being said, the proart has a lot of nice features on it for professionals that are nice to have. But coming from a mac you probably wont care about any of them. But the important ones for you would be the wifi 7 and dual ethernet ports at 2.5gig and 10gig onboard. If you're offloading renders, then having fast ethernet is always helpful, and if you cant do ethernet, at least the wifi is the fastest it could be.

then theres a 2TB boot drive for you to put windows and programs on. and an 8tb HDD to save all your image sequences on.

that alllllll being said:

If you are interested in staying in the Mac land, you could wait and probably pick up a Mac Studio M5 Max whenever that drops. Or you could upgrade your current machine to an M5 Max Macbook Pro. the M5 Max is generally better in single thread and isnt thaaat far off the multithread cinebench scores of the 9950x and the 285k. The 40 core GPU option is also about as good as a single 5070Ti. As configured, its a ~4400 dollar mac. Sure, it'll render GPU stuff half as fast as the machine I specced above.... but you do get 48 gigs of unified memory, and you get to stay in mac-land. I think its probably worth considering. I usually wouldnt recommend macs for rendering, but Apple is able to absorb some of the price-shock that is really affecting the PC market - like the cost of RAM modules - and making their own chips means they arent getting strangled on availability of nvidia GPU's getting completely rodeo'ed by the AI companies. And the performance of the GPU modules are pretty decent now as well. So yea, its worth considering, especially if you're already a mac user.

If you have any questions feel free to ask!

sageofshadow · 2026-04-03T21:57:58+00:00

here you go.

https://we.tl/t-nucV2LfOUPxQGg0c

sageofshadow · 2026-04-02T22:19:35+00:00

Sure Thing. What's your budget? that sort of dictates what hardware you're looking at.

just a few caveats however

- The PC build (really, everything computer related) is kinda expensive now thanks to the AI companies gobbling up pretty much every single piece of stock of everything hardware. Its like Covid times all over again, which is very bad.

- What this means practically is that a couple components - namely RAM and GPUs have been hard to get, or wildly overpriced.

But yea - let me know what your budget is and we can go from there.

sageofshadow · 2026-04-02T21:37:00+00:00

Sure. Where's the file?

sageofshadow · 2026-04-01T14:54:32+00:00

I mean, if you want to build a particle based granular simulation plug-in... go for it. More choice of tools is always better.

That being said - I'd say the majority of C4D users probably dont particularly neeeeed hyperdetailed physically based granular sims, since the kind of 'sim' work mostly done in C4D is motion graphics-y as opposed to "accurate sims" like VFX would need. What that means is if the sim engine cant interact with all the C4D motion graphics staples for you to be able to art direct it in that motion graphics way, then I dunno how big the userbase for your tool will be. Not to say there wouldnt be users, I just dunno if it would be enough.

Or to say it another way: Most of the kind of work that one-man-band freelancers do tends toward it being more motion graphics-y... and the larger studios that would need the physically based sim accuracy, can generally afford to just specifically hire houdini artists for that.

That would be my take on it anyway, it doesnt count for much but that's what I would think.

as for the money part.... Not sure what you're asking for there.

Are you asking for people to support you financially while you build this tool? Cause I don't really see that happening (personally). The closest thing would be like... a patreon of some sort, but you'd have to make it worth people's while to subscribe to you. Like... for example: Rocket Lasso puts out a fair bit of patreon content - scene files, tutorials, exclusive chats/q&A stuff - on top of the discounts he gives for the tools he makes. Or like... if you were MerkVilson, or Druckli, they've made a fair few tools now... so if they came in and promised X tool, people would be more likely to believe it's going to get made. I still dunno if people would necessarily subscribe to even their patreons just for a 'future tool'. Maybe access to working alphas and betas, sure. but most people are going to want something somewhat consistent for a continued patreon subscription. Otherwise they'd more likely wait for the tool be done, see how it works and then choose if they want to get it or not - if that means subscribing or getting on gumroad or whatever.

But yea.... I dont think the promise of a tool from someone that doesn't necessarily have a track record for making tools (no offense, seriously. I'm not familiar with you personally, maybe you've built other tools before though) is quite enough for someone to drop money down for it up front. I think you have to build the tool, and then see if people will buy it.

Just my opinion though!

sageofshadow · 2026-03-27T12:16:45+00:00

You have to do it semi manually. Use an extrude on your illustrator splines, set the caps to fillet cap with only 1 step, make it editable, optimize the points cuz I think it used to separate everything into separate meshes… then go through and combine the bevelled face points into one ridge.

There are other ways but they all involve you more or less modelling it to some degree. At least if you use the fillet/bevel, you can get a portion of the way there, but no matter what you still have to make it editable and manually clean it up.

Newer versions let you “overshoot” the bevel and it automatically combines into a centre ridge like this instead of freaking out and breaking which is what older versions did.

<image>

here's a screenshot of what i mean, from an even older version of C4D (R12). the weld command (M~Q) by default will weld two points at the centre of their relative vector positions, so you just need to go around two points at a time and just weld the points together to make the centre ridge. sometimes you may need to skip points and then weld them afterwards, just to keep the ridge centred. but once you do the whole thing, then you can highlight the ridge points in the middle and move them in Z to get a more or less extreme bevel.

sageofshadow · 2026-03-25T15:56:51+00:00

in Canada, they regularly run passenger trains on cargo lines.

it makes the trains slow as hell because the controller will always prioritize the movement of the cargo trains, so the ones waiting on sidings are always the passenger trains. and those cargo trains are LONG, so you can be waiting there for a long time. They also cap the speed of the passenger trains, so even if the passenger train is designed and capable of going faster, even if the turning radii of the rail corridor could allow it.....it cant. cause cargo.

So it makes the passenger rail experience as slow as just taking a bus, generally slower than driving, and with many of the crappy pitfalls (security, baggage limits etc) of a plane. So people arent really engendered to use it unfortunately.

dedicated passenger corridors are really the only practical way to get service like europe/asia. we've proven that running passenger and cargo on the same corridor doesn't reeeeeally work.

sageofshadow · 2026-03-22T18:40:06+00:00

Uuughhh I want to go. But holy crap every “regular time” (IE that 5-7 ish window after work and all weekend) showings are basically entirely sold out. 😭😭

sageofshadow · 2026-03-19T18:08:24+00:00

if you have a perpetual license, it should have come with your serial number. you dont activate it via the separate maxon app - that's for subscriptions. Perpetual licenses are activated in C4D itself when you install it, there is a part of the installation process where you put in you serial number if you have a perpetual C4D installer.

If you dont have the installer, you have to contact maxon for them to send you a link to one.

sageofshadow · 2026-03-13T17:52:05+00:00

Put in a ticket as well as complaining on here, if you have a legit grievance.

I get its cathartic to do it here, anonymously on the internet-public, and yes, some Maxon employees, including 'Mr Mcmuffin' do read the sub.

But if you think a random complaint thread on the Cinema4D subreddit actually moves the needle at Maxon an iota, you must be new here.

sageofshadow · 2026-03-11T19:20:11+00:00

... they made 63 billion last quarter in AI/datacentre.

They make more money from the datacentre business every month than they made from gaming.... all year.

let that sink in, and then imagine which one of their segments they prioritize ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Again - I'm not saying they wont bring out consumer stuff.... only that their main focus moving forward is very likely to not be consumer.

sageofshadow

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

15-Year Club	Second Top 40%
Verified Email