Anybody? I can't be the only one who needs to make something like this work.

I need to unwrap the UV's on various client product CAD files. That process works much better (especially as I'm using FD Toolkit to help) if I perform that task with a relatively low-poly model. Great. I can do this.

However...

I need to use much higher poly models, for the actual rendering work.

So, I'm trying to use the Property Transfer tool to move the unwrapped UVW map, from the low-poly model, to the high-poly model. Things get messy from there. The UV's do seem to come across correctly, but I'm also stuck with weird artifact issues, around some of the model seams.

I'm attaching the most simply, stripped-down, example of two pieces. One is the low poly (source) and one is the high poly (target).

I hope someone can shed some light on this, for me.

https://spaces.hightail.com/receive/IPq6ilHP4Z

Noseman; your work on the Maxon Youtube channel is excellent, and greatly appreciated. I look forward to your presence, here on this board.

Dr. Sassi, you were, without a doubt, one of the most helpful, positive, and engaging experts I've ever had the privilege to work with.
Thank you for all your help, and best of look on your future endeavors.

Note: I posted this exact question on the RS forum, but have yet to get any feedback. I figure this may be more of a C4D issue, so I'm also posting here.

I've been meaning to ask this for some time. I used to always enable "normalize intensity" for my RS lights. Then, some time ago, something changed (either with RS or C4D) because those exact same lights, in the exact same scenes, would blow out the display (not IPR) in Cinema. It's actually more than a little uncomfortable, with my XDR display. This is a result of having to turn the light intensity quite high, in order to get proper illumination with that feature enabled.

So, is there some setting someplace, in either RS prefs or Cinema, where I can avoid that blow-out preview?

As it stands, it's forced me to only use lights with that feature disabled, which is a total pain when I have to work with an older project; I have to change every light.

Thanks.

Good morning, Dr. Sassi. I apologize for the late reply, I was grinding away all weekend, on the very project which prompted these questions. I had to proceed with some quicker solutions, to make the deadline, but I'll be looking back over your example projects, to see what you have proposed. Finding more practical ways to generate some of these special data passes, will always be highly valuable.

Thank you!

Dr. Sassi, thanks so much. I'm calling it a day, but I'll study your work tomorrow morning. I'm most certainly trying to find some sort of "cheat" because I'm having a heck of a time getting motion vectors to work with my particles scenes - likely taking all the VRAM I have, because Redshift / C4D is having fits - unexpected quits, left and right.

Take your time, Dr. Sassi. I'm interested to see whether there is a way to make this work, but I'm planning my work project around the idea that I'll still have to generate my native particle MV's through Redshift; just to be safe.

Good morning, Dr. Sassi.
Thank you for the example. You beat me to the punch, because I was going to show you (attached) a much closer proxy of what I'm creating.
You can see that the Data Mapper is controlling the radius of the particles, over their age percentage.
However, when you enable the MoG Object, you'll notice that it (not surprisingly) doesn't see that data, so the radius of the particles (clones) remains constant.
Was your project showing a way to also solve for the radius? My apologies; my brain is still waking up today...

particles to MoG test.c4d

Update, I did figure out that it's not terribly difficult to accomplish some of what I was asking about, in regards to the native particles.
Use a MoGraph Object, set to "Object" mode, then drag the Particle Group into that selection. With the MoG set to "Multi-Instance" it's not terribly laggy, either.

All good!

However...I'm realizing that MoGraph is not likely going to read the Data Mapper I have used to control the scale of the particles, over their lives.
So I'm not sure I'll be able to get close enough to make the resultant motion vector render match that of the RS particles beauty pass.