Noseman's link is interesting. However, and I only did a cursory review of that site, I'm not sure how it really handles BSDF materials.
When I needed to generate some glTF files, of my client's products, I had no choice but to quickly learn some Blender basics. There was simply ZERO way to export my carefully crafted RS materials, from either Cinema nor RS. I had to rebuild those in Blender, but that then allowed me to have very faithful representations in any VR viewer.

Thank you, so much, for the very detailed breakdown! Very informative.
This is for client product work, so unfortunately, sharing it with someone else won't be possible.
I'll consider the trial option, but obviously, that isn't necessarily the best practice for continued work, moving forward.

I have a few Keyshot files, and would like to get the contained CAD models exported in order to use them within Cinema.
I don't have Keyshot, otherwise I'd just export .OBJ files.
My limited web searches haven't really turned-up any solutions for non-Keyshot users.

Anyone have any experience doing this?

Thanks.

The materials, most specifically, are why I even commented. Those were 100% the reason why I was forced to (awkwardly) use Blender.
glTF has many supported functions; reflections, blurred reflections, clearcoat, normal maps, anisotropy, etc.
And Blender can natively create those materials - as both those are Open Source.
But you're not going to be able to get procedural-based materials to work the way you want. Even the Blender / glTF route still involves a great deal of compromise and re-working of materials.

I needed to do this kind of thing, a while back, for Amazon. In that case, it needed to work for augmented reality, so people could preview the products in their local environments. But regardless, we needed to utilize the glTF format.
Unfortunately, Cinema (and RS particularly) aren't necessarily the best tools to create those open source files. I needed to quickly learn some basics in Blender, so I could use that to do the final work on those files, once exported from C4D.
Not saying this is the route you need to take, depending on the format you need for your website, but there are some nice advantages to using the glTF format.

Will do, thanks. I pivoted to a different solution for the job. But I'd still like to know, so I'll post an example file as soon as I can free up time.

I want to have a soft body be impacted by a collider, and have the resultant waves propagate for a time.
But then I want the shape to return back to the original shape. I want to be able to direct that return, with precise key-frames.

How would I do this?

Thanks!

Will do, thanks.

Thanks, I'll try that again. Pretty sure I already had, but maybe I need to try adjusting more of the parameters, in order to see the effect.

Okay, thanks! C4D looks to play the occasional joke, I see...
But, if you happened to crack open my scene, where would you position the deformer?
I'm not seeing any results, when I add it in various positions.

Greetings!

I am trying to create a simple (deformer-based) effect, where an object is going to fall into liquid, and create a simple radial ripple. I'm attempting to use the Spline Deformer to create one ripple, and then I'd like to utilize the Jiggle Deformer to create an "echo" of that ripple so that there are many smaller ripples after.

But anywhere I try and apply the Jiggle, it tells me "Invalid Hierarchy".

How would I employ that in my simple example scene?

Also, I'm very much open to any other suggestions as to how to go about making a "simple" water ripple; I'm not tied to the spline deformer route, by any means.

Thanks

Hey Noseman,

Thank you, and my apologies, I normally would have done so. But I was a bit rushed, and I actually tracked-down one of your excellent quick tip videos, regarding creating quick (Add Transform Constraint) constraints, and that got me thinking that the "transform" option might work better than the "clamp" or "parent" options, I had been fumbling around with.
So I think I'm okay for my current deadline, but I'll circle back soon, with a sample project, to see whether there are more elegant solutions to my problem; as it stands, I'm key-framing a number of parameters ON then OFF, to achieve the effect.

I have a project where, in simple terms, I need to have a tube impact a sphere, and then have the sphere stick to the tube.
Seems like this should be a simple task with the Constraint Tag - using Clamp.
However, as is almost always the case with that tag, the results are a pain to achieve. Whenever I reset the animation to the first frame, the sphere almost always winds up some improper position.

I'm specifically toggling the tag's "Enable" feature off, then on, at the moment of impact. So ahead of that enabling, the sphere should be receiving no effect from the tag, right? But it does.

There must be a sure-fire way to make these kinds of common tasks work 100% with the constrain tag, right?

Help, please!

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.