The distance tweak works perfectly, thanks so much for your help!

Please help, I'm trying to build a simulated track, similar to the chain simulation in the Cinema 4D help menu.

I've got it all almost there but I'm getting a weird issue - when I play the simulation, a single link flies off into the distance, and it seems to break the connector. All the other links work fine and collide as expected.

Here's my project:
Track Links v2.c4d

As you can see, I'm cloning the links onto a circle and so they should all be identical clones and positioning - I can't work out why this single link doesn't work! I've play around with the substeps, segments and interpolation of different objects, but there's no difference.

Thanks Dr. Sassi! That looks interesting, I'm going to be playing around with this today to see if I can get it to work on my scenes!

Hello, just as the title says, I want to create something like a proximal shader in Redshift. I want to effectively mask out parts of my models using masks as an alpha shader.

It would be a bonus to be able to use fields instead of a point for the shader. I know how to use vertex maps + fields to achieve a similar effect, but there is a key issue with this method:

For this method to work, the Vertex map tag needs to be added onto every single item that you want it to affect. If I add the vertex map to a top group / null in a hierachy, it only affects the actual object, not the children. The issue being:

• I'm working with large models, in excess of 100,000 items. It's not practical to manage vertex tags on them all.
• I'm working with a lot of xRefs where parts are imported from other projects. Any modifications to xRefs are lost when re-opening a project, including any tags I add.

The bonus with the proximal shader is that it only applied to materials. I could define the proximal origin as a null, create the proximal shader in the alpha channel, and copy it to all materials. Then using the the point, I could mask out areas of my scene.

Any thoughts please people?

Hello there,

I'm having a problem mapping a simple gradient ramp onto standard cube using default UV maps. I'll run through what I'm doing, would really appreciate help with this!

Here's the project that I discuss below: Gradient Ramp UV Mapping.c4d

Step 1: Open a new project with nothing in it, no materials or assets.

Step 2: Create a simple redshift material, add a "Ramp" node, connect it to the color input.

Step 3: Drag the material onto the cube. Keep the default UV mapping.

The result looks like this:

However, I would expect the cube to have the gradient showing on all sides, using these very basic default settings. I have played around a lot now with lots of different options. Things I've tried without any success:

• Using a scalar ramp node instead of ramp. Didn't expect it to work to be fair.
• Changing material projection to Cubic. No change.
• Add a triplanar node between ramp and material in node editor.
• Changing tiling and offset options on material
• In rendering settings > Redshift > System > Legacy have changed the "Material Processing Mode" and the "Texture Projections" Settings
• On the Ramp node, changing the "Source" and "Mapping" settings.
• Watched some gradient tutorials online. One from greyscale gorilla is great, but when I follow it, it doesn't work for me.
• Making cube editable. Also then tried dragging the UVW map into the Texture Space field on the ramp node.

What am I missing? It is something completely obvious?

Ah, need to set the gradient interpolation to Linear of course!

Hello Dr. Sassi, thanks very much for your answer, really appreciate that! Works perfectly now

This is good, but I do find that this method doesn't produce a consistent pattern - in my case the repeated gradients in the middle are smaller then the ones on the ege of the texture.

I want to apply a redshift material to a lot of objects, but rotate the texture for each object to a unique position.

Hello all,

I'm struggling with material projection in C4D 2025 + Redshift.

Projection Issue v1.c4d

Please see my test project, I create a simple redshift material, add a Maxon noise for the color, and I've applied 4 different projections to the cylinders. In the view panel they look right:

But in the IPR viewer, they look identical:

Why doesn't the maxon noise respect the projection? If I change material coordinates, for example to into Texture Mode and rotate a material that uses cylindrical projection, this updates in the view panel, but the render shows no change. How can I get the render to reflect the correct projection?

Nice! I knew about the legacy emitter but I wanted to see if it still worked on the new type! Thank you for your example project, that really helps!

I had some weird color management issues with redshift initially, but set these settings on my default project and it's been ok since. I have a default project that opens up whenever I create a new project in C4D.
You can change the default startup project by going to Edit > Preferences > Files and amending the settings here:

in C4D 2025, I can drop a sphere onto a cloner onto a metaball:

(sorry if the images are blurry, this site only seems to allow low res images? I tried an 800px image, 20kb in size and it was "too big")

Anyway with metaball activated, I can generate nice blobs.

However, what if I want to animate the blobs? I have tried adding both soft both and hard body tags to the metaball generator, the sphere and the cloner, nothing seems to work - I want them to move freely and independently, forming blobs as they meet each other.

Any ideas?

In version 2023, I can drop an emitter onto a metaball generator, and it "metaballifies" the emitted objects.

If I something similar in the new particle system in 2025, it doesn't work:. Here, I add the emitter and particle group as a child of metaball.

and here I also add the cloner as a child of a metaball:

I know I can create a legacy emitter, but surprised that metaball no longer works with emitters - I used to be able to create some interesting effects. Would be interested to know if there's a go-forward plan to allow metaball and emitters to work together?