I think I did with the file CV2_r21_drs_19_REcc_12.c4d Placing the xpTrail into a Sweep and use a Fractal Voronoi.
This shows then only one emitter.
.
Perhaps creating a Spline segment and fill a circle with those, then rotate that setup.
File 15 holds the version that I think should work at any time, as it is a native Cinema 4D file. The Splines are all different in length, color, and position. On group has half the speed of the second. Both are set up to loop after 145 frames (0-144).
There is no start nor end, it is just a trail simulation. It is fast and stable.
Thanks Sassi, 15 is pretty great.
However I’m unclear about one or two things work in there. If I understand correctly you are sweeping a series of arcs that form the circle, then fracturing them and applying random colors to the fragments.
However it looks like your fragments are in fact chunks of lines, that you then randomly position to have a the “line” effect?
I also see you have the formula effector there with “modify clone” turned on, but what is that one doing?
Yes, they are just Arc Splines. Sweeped. The Voronoi Fracture (Source points off) just separates those and allows for color based on the Random Effector. You described it correctly.
The Formula Effector was is an easy way to get a different blend of results among the Clones. Just in case I have to repeat this many times. Here is a version without it. [16] https://www.amazon.com/clouddrive/share/icaUGyHFqM861FDD0yPkPwfkT9wKCtPNDd8pRGE9iFj
Inside of the link is as well a copy of the file 22. It is the simplest way to create this “effect”. Frame 0-144 produces the build-up, and the remaining frames will deliver the loop. Render from the start, it is cached, and the geometry will not be generated for frames 0-143, so it is fast for the first part.
This is not ready so far, I guess, just a suggestion, as I have no information about the need for X-Particles. The mentioning of this requirement in the middle of the thread made me think that I have not all needed information.
Alex,
Here is a way that should work nicely, except perhaps for some post-render effects. Since you mentioned that those will be part of Ae anyway, I have explored this possibility.
Hey Sassi, I’m so sorry I never saw that post! Maybe the email notification ended up in my junk, but I’m looking at it now. It seems like a great idea, but requires more render times as it is multiple cameras no?
This is a great approach though, very useful for any 360 projection setup!
Also, I have a question…I’m trying out the Cylindrical lens in your file REcc_14.
I basically am starting with a series of spheres clones onto the spline circle. At a certain moment they will start moving sideways and leaving trails behind.
However, when I do test renders I notice two things
1/The circles are elongated vertically
2/The image that is being rendered does not take up the whole vertical space of the output.
Alex, it shouldn’t take more render time, as you render four small stripes only (The squares in my example are more to showcase what the Ae Converter needs). Perhaps the Converter adds a little time to it.
The Track System should automate this anyway.
You could set it up once and replace footage, like in a template.
Alex, the Settings of the Cylindrical Lens are not super intuitive, as it follows not at all anything we can perceive in the same way with our eye.
This option was introduced over a decade ago as a request of Digital Matte Painters. At that time, this craft was predominately a 2D thing, except for the occasionally Camera Projection.
Since the Particles in your initial request were relatively flat (like a wall-paper on a cylinder, I suggested this option. The settings of the Y-axis of this lens are in the render settings.
(Field Of View [FOV])
The Cylindrical Lens has a FOV defined horizontally in degree and vertically in cm (based on the active camera orientation). This means that the vertically FOV of the resulting image is not dependent on the horizontally FOV. It goes a little bit more complicated, as the render size of the image can have any ratio. All of that combines that at one point, spheres look just right, anything closer will be look horizontally stretched, and further away spheres will keep their vertical size, but lose their horizontal size.
If the active camera in the Object manager is not leveled, things get quite “surrealistic.”
I hope that gives some insight into the use of it.
Hey Sassi, that makes sense, I’ll fiddle around.
What doesn’t make sense though is that in the preview window I can see that the camera is seeing the right resolution or aspect ratio, but in the PV it looks like everything is scaled down?
Do you see that on your end? With both the cylindrical and spherical cameras
