Thank you very much for the file.

The section that you indicated as a problem could be "supported" in several ways; three options are attached.

Forcefield, moving "Repel" (Attractor), and roughly aligned Gravity with a spline Field.

Examples
https://projectfiles.maxon.net/Cineversity_Forum_Support/2026_PROJECTS_DRS/20260103_CV4_2026_drs_26_SIgy-rp-rb_01.zip

Would that work for you?

Cheers

Thank you very much, smckenzie, for the reply.

My best wishes for your project!

Thanks for sharing your experience, smckenzie.

Sounds good!

My best wishes for your Project

Hi smckenzie,

Thank you very much for the file, and using Apple-Cloud!

The problem is that there is no simple solution in one go.

With the Correction Deformer, I have created a demo to showcase where the connections do not agree, simple geometry problems, not based on the tools. I have set up two cameras to point them out.
CV4_2025_drs_25_MOif_01.c4d
In the other file
I corrected the problem points but to the disadvantage of the horizontal "beams".
CV4_2025_drs_25_MOif_11.c4d
I hope that makes sense.

Let me know what shape the final object should have, and I try to find a way, but there are limits in geometry and merge shapes logically.

All the best

Thank you for the reply, smckenzie.

My best wishes

Summary:

Why correct "set survey data" is crucial,
while often completely ignored or misunderstood.

Here is a 17mm and 90mm focal length comparison that creates the same result, while the object has a different depth.

CV4_2025_drs_25_CMzm_11.c4d

Screenshot 2025-02-16 at 11.29.26 PM.jpg

In other words, if little information is available, the resulting idea of what camera was used to create one or the other render with identical Perspective lines will produce complete nonsense.
Hence my long discussion.

Click to activate one or the other camera. I have color-coded both. It is easy to see why no information will lead to weird ideas about setup.

I have done my first camera match over 30 years ago, for a larger architecture project of mine, in Photoshop 2.5. , Since then I have done a lot of those.

Enjoy

Thanks for sharing, smckenzie, it look very "non procedural", i.e., great.

Seems like you enjoy the nodes.

Cheers

Thanks for the reply, smckenzie.

I assumed that it is more work. Is this a very detailed view? If so, the work might be appropriate; why not use texture and displacement?

Yes, I know the Partition Modifier, and you should have access to it, your file was a 2025 version, so I assume you have a subscription. Anyway, this will not produce Bricks; if it does, I might miss something.

Screenshot 2024-11-15 at 6.09.27 PM.jpg

Cheers

Thank you very much for your feedback, smckenzie.

Explore the Remesh on top of the Volume Mesher (25% - 50%)

Enjoy your project!

(P.S.: I saw your other question, I will check in the morning [Pacific Time here})

Hi smckenzie,

Thanks for the file.

Here is the simplest way, but if you need individual beams, Render or Multi Instances are not an option.

CV4_2025_drs_24_RSdb_01.c4d

If you need a lot, how many, and do they move? When would a repetition be visible (Number of beams)

All the best

You're very welcome, smckenzie.

I'm glad it works for you.

My best wishes

You're very welcome, smckenzie!

Thanks for the reply.

My best wishes for your project.

Hi smckenzie,

Please have a look here. Does this come close?

CV4_2025_drs_24_ANel_01.c4d

Cheers

Hi smckenzie,

You're very welcome, thanks for the reply.

Enjoy your weekend

Hi smckenzie,

Depending on the format, you can swap the Z with the Y axis (+ or -) during the Import.
This should work. I have no data on what format you use to write it from Revit.
My best guess would be DXF or FBX
https://www.autodesk.com/support/technical/article/caas/sfdcarticles/sfdcarticles/Revit-Export-format.html?us_oa=dotcom-us&us_si=f7b8963f-1458-4d27-b47e-a2ede4ed1b6f&us_st=revit%20export%20formats

If you use FBX, you can define the vertical axis during Import. Since I do not know what you have, you could try Z, perhaps.
Here is your file back.
I used the Axis Tool and then moved all axes to its center (Enable Axis Modification [L]).
https://stcineversityprod02.blob.core.windows.net/$web/Cineversity_Forum_Support/2024_PROJECTS_DRS/20240329_CV4_2024_drs_24_IMyz_01.c4d.zip
I have not aligned the rotation of the house, as that might be based on context.

If you have a direct export from Revit, I'm happy to look into it.

All the best

You're too kind, smckenzie, thank you very much.

Have a great weekend!

Thanks for the reply, smckenzie,

Sweeping is an "extrusion" along a path, not a "cloning" along a path.

Perhaps you set up a Plane and use that as a clone matrix, etc.

An example is here:

CV_2024_drs_24_MOth_11.c4d
Switch all object to active.

Screen Shot 2024-02-16 at 2.47.52 PM.jpg

Have a great weekend.

You're very welcome, smckenzie.

Think of the most straightforward formula as the number 1, in other words, replace the formula with 1. This is then the same as the Plain Effector.
The one stands for 100% of the Parameter in the Effector.

When you explore the Variables in the interface, you might get some ideas already: use the id/count to have values from zero to 1 applied to clones with the id zero to id max.

That should be all for the beginning. Let it sink in.

All the best

You're very welcome, smckenzie,

I have no idea what the final use is for this part. For example, how close the camera goes to the details.

I would remove the Edge Breaks or place them equally so the large flat wall surface is set up equally.

I had good results with a few of the Style> Area options, but some bevels were not "resolved" very nicely, as shown. As usual, the target determines the details, But also, if it is a high-res still of a camera move that "eats" most details with Motion Blur.

On the other hand, there is a new tool: Mesh> Normals. Normals Editing. Which allows for Normal editing in a better way.

My best wishes for your project.

Thanks for the details, smckenzie,

Please have a look here:

CV4_2024_drs_23_OMrn_01.c4d

You must drag all your objects* that must be changed into the Object Node List.

Enable Xpresso for a short moment. It needs to be disabled after that!

Now select all the object that needs to be changed in the Object Manager.

Call up the Name Tool. Now, the "Replace" field makes sense, as they all have the same name. (If empty, it searches only for objects with no name, which one can't have). This is now replaced with whatever you place in the "With" field.

*If you need to change it more often, perhaps create a Selection Object

If you like to have the hard-coded names back, leave the "With" field empty while they have all the XPresso-based same name, and use the Name Tool.

All the best