Jump to content


The place to talk about X-Particles and Cycles 4D

Steve Pedler

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Steve Pedler last won the day on September 13

Steve Pedler had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

12 Good


Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Steve Pedler

    R21 Performance?

    You may have had confrmation of this from support already, but for the beneft of others this is nothing to do with XP. You have around 18 Python generators in the scene, all of which have to execute at the start of the animation, and that's what is causing those long delays. Turn them all off and it runs as fast as you'd expect. Steve
  2. Steve Pedler

    C4D R21 - MAC - FluidPBD, FluidFX dysfunction

    In the X-Particles preferences you can set the default mass to 1 (the factory setting is 1, on Windows and OSX in all Cinema versions).
  3. Steve Pedler

    What renderer?

    You can use Cinema's standard renderer to render particles and trails using the XP material but you will get far more capability using Cycles 4D, which is designed to be integrated closely with X-Particles. Other renderers which can render XP include Redshift and Octane although you may not get the same close integration as with Cycles 4D. We have never been asked to work with the Vray devs to render XP with Vray so at the present time I don't think this is possible, but you might want to check with the Vray people directly about this. Steve
  4. It’s perfectly okay to ask, but I can’t give you an answer. Not being secretive or anything, I just don’t know. I can’t really say more than that ATM, sorry.
  5. No, since then it would only work in R21 and be no use to versions earlier than that. We support down to R14.
  6. Steve Pedler

    Rotation in physics simulation

    This is behaving as designed. The particle rotation is set to tangential, so it will depend on the particle direction. Once they hit the cube, the direction is along the face of the cube. The direction doesn't change (until the particles fall off the end of the cube), so the rotation doesn't change. I think you're expecting the kind of rotation you would see if the spheres were controlled by the C4D dynamics, so they rotate due to friction with the cube. XP doesn't do that as it doesn't use polygon-based collisions, so right now this is the behaviour you will get with this kind of scene. You can use C4D's dynamics with XP (see the manual, there's a page about this) and then you get the desired rotations, but note the main caveat: once you do this, the particle movement is controlled entirely by the dynamics engine and not by XP's modifiers, etc. Hope that helps to understand what's happening here.
  7. Steve Pedler

    xpShaderFalloff Bug? SOLVED

    Thanks, I've found it now, though there is no layer shader there, just the xpShaderFalloff. The problem is not a bug, it's a serious limitation in the Cinema SDK. For any animated shader to work, they must be given the current scene time. For almost everything else in Cinema, you have access to the scene and therefore the current time. With the exception of (you guessed it) falloffs. With a falloff there is simply no way to get the scene time, it just can't be done. I remember spending hours on this when writing the falloff before concluding it was not possible. So animated shaders are out, I'm afraid. Re the other problem - PV render vs. the viewport render - my guess is that you mean the viewport appearance is different to the PV render, is that right? Because if you do an actual viewport render, it looks the same as the PV render. This is because in the skinner you have two settings, Polygon Size and Render Polygon Size. The first is used in the viewport, the second at render time. This lets you work with a low-poly mesh in the editor and a high-poly version in the final render, but as you found, if the render size is significantly smaller than the viewport size, the mesh can look very different. Make them the same, and the viewport mesh will look like the one in the PV render.
  8. Steve Pedler

    xpShaderFalloff Bug? SOLVED

    I can't find the layer shader or shader falloff in your scene file. Did you upload the correct scene?
  9. Steve Pedler

    stepping and lagging particles

  10. Steve Pedler

    Why Won't This Render? SOLVED

    This isn't a problem with Cycles, the same thing will happen in the standard renderer - that is, if you try to render the current frame to the PV, it won't do so. This happens because when Cinema renders an image to the PV (but not to the viewport, and not in the RTP of Cycles) it clones the current document then renders the clone at the specified frame. In many cases this works fine but for many dynamic scenes what gets rendered depends very much on the previous frames; data will have been generated and updated in those previous frames that each succeeding frame needs. This frame will then alter the data for the next frame. If you try to render a single frame to the viewport there's no problem as you're rendering the document present in the editor and all the data has been generated and updated. But if you render that frame to the PV, it will not have that data and so what you will get is essentially whatever was on the starting frame of the animation. Try your scene with the standard or physical renderer, you will see the same result when rendering a single frame. The solution, if you want one specific frame to be rendered to the PV, is to render the frame sequence from the start to the one you want. Yes, it is a pain to have to do that but it's the result of how Maxon implemented the external renderer (which is what standard and physical are considered to be when rendering to PV and why it's easy to add multiple render engines to Cinema).
  11. Steve Pedler

    How to get the Bridge for R20

    1. The bridge is included in the latest version of XP, so all you need to do is download the latest release using the download link sent to you when you bought X-Particles. 2. For early access, see https://insydium.ltd/products/early-access/ 3. There will never be an X-Particles 5, it's just 'X-Particles' with no version number. Our system of constant updates means that there will never be a new numbered version as such, instead you get repeated updates at intervals. This lets us get new features to you much faster than releasing a big new version every couple of years. You will get the updates for free as long as you have a current valid maintenance package. Hope that helps, Steve
  12. Steve Pedler

    xpShatter isn't showing SOLVED

    Shatter is currently available in the early access build of XP, you’ve got the release build. See our website for how to sign up to the early access program (it’s free).
  13. Steve Pedler

    Please post a scene file

    When asking for help in this forum please remember that it is extremely helpful to anyone who might want to answer that you post a scene file to demonstrate what the problem is (unless that would be of no use in the given context). Unfortunately, experience shows that queries without a scene file are much less likely to be answered because it takes too much time to create a file to try to reproduce the issue. Please note that screenshots are not an adequate substitute for a file though by all means include them as well as a scene file if you wish. Many thanks, The Management
  14. Just to clarify, the original XP used percentage variations but the overwhelming opinion of users was to switch to absolute values as it is now. So we listened to our users and changed them all. There is no setting to switch between actual values and percentages I’m afraid.
  15. Steve Pedler

    Particle Mass Not Working SOLVED

    Actually, your original post described the physically correct result. With the same grav strength objects of different masses fall at the same rate (Galileo first postulated this). So particles with different mass values should fall at the same rate, as you saw. If you want them to fall at different rates, you either have to add drag (which is why a feather doesn't fall at the same rate as a cannonball - it's due to drag from air resistance, not the difference in mass) or alter the gravity strength, which in this case either means two different modifiers, or as Lothar showed, use data mapping. That's the better solution as then the strength can be made proportional to mass. True, it's not physically correct. But who cares as long as it works? If you're interested, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo's_Leaning_Tower_of_Pisa_experiment