#C4DQuickTip

[@InfiniteBlue_]

Good video but would be simply cool if we could use vertex maps directly in the future... seems much more logic than this workaround XD

[@MotionPunk]

that

[@yahtzio]

or if they even explained this step in the docs.

[@pixelasm]

2:20 well at least you could add several mesh emitters, each with a higher tolerance, so that they add up the stronger the vertex map is, right? Although not a gradual increase in particle density a stepping of 3-5 emitters might be sufficient for most cases.

[@khalilmaknoun]

Thank you,this is what I’m looking for

[@yahtzio]

Can @maxon please put this into the manual/documentation? It simply says you can use vertex maps in surface mode, but does not explain how. This entire extra missing step of having to do it via poly transfer is not mentioned at all. If not for finding this video I would have had no idea how to achieve what should have been a simple and straightforward set up that your own docs say is possible. And as someone else commented - direct access to the vertex map would be preferable.

[@farid.rabhallah]

Thank you. شكرا لك

[@Creative.B]

When I select the vertex tag, i can see the random noise updating in real time, which is expected. However, when I select the polygon selection tag the animation doesn't play or follow the vertex map's animation properly. The particles are only emitted based on the first frame of the noise, unless I repeatedly click on the polygon selection tag (to somehow make it "force update"). I tried this on a basic plane with enough polygons. Anything I'm missing on?

[@Vannellus]

Sad there is still no way to "paint" the density of scattered objects/particles or whatever. I hoped this could be a workaround. But still, no way. Will Maxon ever understand, how important it is? The only workaround is to use the plain effector with a scaling to -1. But scaling is not density of distribution. Our company is using C4D, but our workflows are always to find workarounds for something we want to achieve. I am not sure, whether we should go for Cinema4D in the future at all. There is so much basic stuff, which is so important. Axis work, more SRT tools than local and global, snapping workflow, non destructive modeling, creating UVs, the F-Curve-Editor is crap. Crashes.... And so on. My list is endless. And why the new particle system is not based on nodes? Do you have no one at Maxon who is coming from productions and who is telling you, what is important to develope?

[@stemfourvisual]

Understand your frustrations, but I always have to remind myself the first iteration ( or 2 ) of a new feature tends to have things missing - lets see what comes in the next updates.

[@nickli682]

You can simply use your own UV map and extract RGBA values in the field list by using either shader/channel switch layer, then mutiply it with your vertex map which controls the particle emissions. You should submit these new features tickets to maxon. Putting comments here simply will get ignored by the dev team.

[@stemfourvisual]

@@nickli682 If the dev team aren’t paying attention to feedback on the company’s own online presence, they’re not doing it right.

[@Vannellus]

@@nickli682 You didn't understand me. It's not possible to adjust the density. Only, where particles are emitted or not. The "use transfer" options supports a threshold only. It's the same problem, we have with every scattering possibility via RS scatter, Cloner, Matrix, etc... U can't paint the density of instances or particles via vertex maps.

[@nickli682]

@@stemfourvisual well, I submit lots of bug/suggestion tickets to them through the official support channel. They do reply to every single one and they did actually fix my bugs and improve based on a few of my suggestions.