PDA

View Full Version : Afterburn


Pages : 1 2 3 [4] 5

nitrocom
12-18-2007, 09:16 PM
hey wildstorm,

go for more realism, you could simply take some shots from google earth or night view of the earth from internet and use it as a texture on terrain, you can even use simple dem files for displacement.

On the other hand, use more noise and density on the clouds, this would be much better rather than gamish lookin!

Keep it coming dude...

visualchaosfx
12-19-2007, 02:51 PM
it depends on what your going for. you going for realism or gamey. the clouds look very gameish to me.

I was going for some realisim.

Maybe you could increase the details in the cloud and decrease the opacity.....Cause right now the clouds look like 3D....what I mean is that it needs a little bit more realism..try to add a few more clouds in the background of different sizes to add a variety to the scene and in PFlow also add a scale operator and add in the AB opertor and check the affect particle size.....so that a little variance in the scale operator will make the spheres vary in size......But all these are just suggestions..you can play around with these settings to see what you get...:)

I'll try that out and post the results.

That looks great. Could you go into detail on how you created it? I don't suppose you could post a scene file for us to look at your settings? Or maybe a screen grab of your settings(particles and afterburn)? Bravo.

Hey Daniel,

Yeah I'll post the scene file for all to see here soon. I'm using the librarys internet access for the time being because I do not have internet at home.

hey wildstorm,

go for more realism, you could simply take some shots from google earth or night view of the earth from internet and use it as a texture on terrain, you can even use simple dem files for displacement.

On the other hand, use more noise and density on the clouds, this would be much better rather than gamish lookin!

Keep it coming dude...

Thats what I've been thinking about getting night or evening airiel shots. Yeah the clouds do need more noise on it. Thanks for the suggestions guys.:thumbsup:

n0mad
12-19-2007, 03:47 PM
Hello people!

I cannot solve one problem for a very long time. Every time i stumble on it i try to find another ways to do it. So i dare to ask you about this, may be somebody knows where is my mistake.

Lets me render the Afterburn cloud -

http://live-00.land.ru/forum/r.jpg

If i have nothing to do with it - everything is ok. -

http://live-00.land.ru/forum/ab.jpg

But if i started to contrast or color correct it - the dirty artifacts is appearing on the endges of the clouds. -

http://live-00.land.ru/forum/ab+cc.jpg

If somebody had had the same problem and solved it, plese tell me in what i am wrong.

thank you.

p.s Just in case i attached the rendered clouds (tga).

nitrocom
12-19-2007, 08:27 PM
Well, i cant say i had the exact same situtation but I had to deal with an issue which was all about alpha channel and falloff parameters.

To fix it, play with falloff. I have no time to take a look on the scene, I'm sorry but using shadow on them would be an another solution!

C ya...

n0mad
12-20-2007, 07:58 AM
Thank you fo your comment , nitrocom. I'll try to get some better result with falloff parameter.

CapitanRed
12-20-2007, 08:49 AM
id did a quick colorcorrect test with your render and same happened to me. then i composed the foregroud with the background first, and colorcorrected it after the merge. this worked well.
to keep the clouds alpha, i didn't merge the alpha. only rgb. then premult, and comp again over the background.

n0mad
12-20-2007, 03:06 PM
Thank you CapitanRed.
Can you show the node tree ??
(does not matter what compositing package did you use)

visualchaosfx
12-20-2007, 03:41 PM
I found a few images on the internet that I really liked and decided use them as a backdrop for this scene of a city in peril. This is not the final composite. I may end up doing the thick smoke in FumeFX, although this doesn't look bad either. I painted in lit windows and stuff. I'm trying to figure out how to light some of the streets because power hasn't been knocked all the way out.

Original plate
http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee320/wildstormfilms/untreated.jpg


Retouched plate
http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee320/wildstormfilms/city_in_peril.jpg


I did render out the smoke animations and I need to adjust some settings in the particle flow setup specifically, the Delete operator. Other than that, I think it looks cool.

I used Adobe After Effects for blending the various images together and color grading.


Here is the .max file of the ground explosion that I posted earlier this week. Project file made in 3ds max 8.

http://files.filefront.com/ground+explosionmax/;9290989;/fileinfo.html

everlite
12-20-2007, 04:00 PM
Hey Lee, a few thoughts about your scene.

I understand it's still in progress, but might give you a few ideas, anyway ..

Keep an eye on the black points, first of all the background plate seems a little high in contrast. The Smoke needs to be much darker to match the plate, play around with the levels/curve in AE and match the blacks to that of your plate. That said i'd first pull the plate back a little then match the smoke to that.

When using AE, do most of the grading in AE itself so you can work with the CG at the same time, i'm guessing you graded the backplate in PS then imported into AE?

Regarding composition, i'd think about a different angle for the meteors, crossing the frame like that seems less exciting, maybe you could have them passing over the camera from slightly behind to the left, with a little camera shake, giving the impression they're a lot closer.

I'd also like to see a little more internal glow/fire, at least 25% further up the shaft.

I'd also be tempted to begin the shot with a few distant meteors breaking through the clouds quite slowly, then introduce the two forground.

Over all looking good :)

- Dave.

visualchaosfx
12-20-2007, 04:08 PM
Hey Dave,

Thanks for the suggestions. I did all of the color grading in AE. In all actually, the smoke is supposed to emit from the buildings but I like the meteor idea better. I'll post some updates here shortly and maybe even an animation.

everlite
12-20-2007, 04:20 PM
Oh sorry m'man, i thought they were meteors :) easy mistake when looking at the still :)

Clouds can easily be done in AE, i've done a few in the past, just render out a single AB pass and use the mesh warp to animate the movement, works surprisingly well and realistic :)

Sorry dude :)

visualchaosfx
12-20-2007, 04:49 PM
Oh sorry m'man, i thought they were meteors :) easy mistake when looking at the still :)

Clouds can easily be done in AE, i've done a few in the past, just render out a single AB pass and use the mesh warp to animate the movement, works surprisingly well and realistic :)

Sorry dude :)

Its ok. I forgive you lol.

nitrocom
12-20-2007, 10:06 PM
Hey wildstorm,

Yes, in work in progress mode, its very hard to make some critics but before everything forgive me :)

Well, the main problem i can see at that point is composite! Smoke Trails are far away from fitting in the scene! I can see that matte painting was handled very well but there is a lighting or color correction problem with ab smokes...

From background to foreground :

-Sun is very good and realistic for scene! Especially, glow of the sun is fitting perfect!

-Some of buildings have ligting (room lighting in theirselves) but some of them don't! I think it's a matter of time (wip situation)

-Smoke Trails need for more dramatic looking like some noisy smokes and fractal inner combustion like everlite said!

Thats all I can say for now, keep it coming, good job!

jussing
12-21-2007, 07:55 AM
Lol, I also thought they were meteors. :) I think the problem there is that they're too steep. Must be a hell of a hurricane blowing. Also, smoke like that disperses quicker, I'd say.

- Jonas

CapitanRed
12-21-2007, 07:56 AM
hey n0mad, here a screenshot.
when i wrote the last post, i missed something to mention, and this leaded me to write something not really correct ;)
sorry for that.
but here i have a good way to do it i think.
merge the colorcorrected FG over the background, WITHOUT merging the alpha.
and then simply copy the alpha channel back into the comp.

http://www.megalomania.ch/capitanred/forum_posts/comp.jpg

n0mad
12-21-2007, 08:47 AM
CapitanRed , thank you very much.
You really helped me.
:):)

n0mad
12-22-2007, 02:29 PM
Hello people.
Please, tell me your meanings about my clouds.

http://live-00.land.ru/forum/c1.jpg


http://live-00.land.ru/forum/c3.jpg


http://live-00.land.ru/forum/c2.jpg


thank you

Vall
12-24-2007, 07:35 PM
Hello! I've got a quite big problem with my renders with Afterburn. Just look at the render:

http://greenheaven.pl/afterburn/render.jpg

The clouds I am trying to do are very pixelated (just as if the noise map would be too low resolution?). These are my settings:

http://greenheaven.pl/afterburn/settings1.png
http://greenheaven.pl/afterburn/settings2.png
http://greenheaven.pl/afterburn/settings3.png

I couldn't find the problem anywhere else. It only seems to occur once every couple of scenes. I'm using MAX 8 and rendering in Default Scanline Renderer. Any clue?

Thanks in advance...
V.

SoLiTuDe
12-24-2007, 09:05 PM
Try lowering your step size to something like .2 ...if you have a step size of 1 and a sphere size of 2, you're basically going to be chopping up the volume into only 2 slices, thus it looking crappy :)

nitrocom
12-24-2007, 09:06 PM
You are using smoke type for puffy clouds, switch them to fractal or turbulance,

Bigger size with the current noise size is gonna be more suitable,

Chance gain to default value : 0.5 and give more detail, lower the blur, density falloff : cubic not linear!

So those what I would do if I could have the file! To be honest, I can't understand what have you done in the scene, clouds in the atmospheric layers?

dnashj33
12-24-2007, 11:20 PM
Hello people.
Please, tell me your meanings about my clouds.
thank youThe second one looks great. The other 2 need more noise/detail. Plus, they mostly look like small little puffs instead of meshed cloud layers. Use fewer particels, and perhaps scaling the overall size, increasing the sphere radius, and adding to your noise size should help. Your second image is a good reference, and would pass as a photograph. Nice job.

jigu
12-25-2007, 01:38 AM
Hello guys.

Is it possible to render velocity pass for AB particles?

Merry Christmas and Happy new year everyone.


-J.

entrancea
12-25-2007, 01:55 AM
Hey you guys....Wishing you all a Merry Christmas and a Very Happy New Year.....Njoy your parties:beer: .................

Regards,
Entrancea

wncRanger
12-25-2007, 09:43 AM
Hello everyone, Greetings and Salutations!

I hope everyone is having a wonderful holiday. I hate to be a bit of a bother, but I am having trouble and could use some help. As you can see, there are strange artifacts appearing in the render.

http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w51/wncranger/odd_artifacts.jpg

I'm using Afterburn 3.2a with 3ds Max 2008 on an everex xt5000t (amd turion, dual processor) running vista x64. Here are my settings.

http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w51/wncranger/settings_pfe.jpg
http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w51/wncranger/settings_01.jpg
http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w51/wncranger/settings_02.jpg
http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w51/wncranger/settings_03.jpg

The tutorial I am attempting to follow is here:

http://www.3dtotal.com/team/Tutorials_2/afterburn/afterburn_01.asp

The scene consists of the particle flow setup, a sphere, a targeted spot and a wind force. All settings are those suggested in the tutorial.

I would be greatful if you can help me solve this problem. Merry Christmas to you and yours and I hope you all have a joyous and prosperous new year.

wncranger

n0mad
12-25-2007, 12:37 PM
dnashj33,

thank you for your comment.


wncRanger,

In Pflow > PF Source > Render 01 operator - set Type to "None" .
I believe it will fix your artifacts.

wncRanger
12-25-2007, 04:53 PM
Ta n0mad!!! That was brilliant. I knew I was overlooking something completely simple and at two of the morning, one's mind isn't spot on.

Merry Christmas, all!

wncranger

Vall
12-26-2007, 11:02 AM
Thanks everyone for hints on my render too! :] Reducing the step size to 0,05 and changing the type of noise helped a lot. Thanks and Merry Christmas : )

V.

jigu
12-28-2007, 04:22 AM
Guys, Anyone can help me how to do motioblur with AB particles in post? I want to give motionblur in combustion using velocity chennel. But i don't know how to export velocity pass for AB particles?

Thank you for the helps!

Regards,
-J.

n0mad
12-28-2007, 06:22 AM
Hello jigu !!
Test the image channels button in the Afterburn Renderer dialog box.
Hope it helps!

entrancea
12-28-2007, 07:30 AM
[QUOTE=wncRanger]Hello everyone, Greetings and Salutations! I hope everyone is having a wonderful holiday. I hate to be a bit of a bother, but I am having trouble and could use some help. As you can see, there are strange artifacts appearing in the render.[QUOTE=wncRanger]



Hey wncRanger,
Try to turn the shape operator in your PFlow and see.....The Tetra shapes you see in your render is because your shape operator is turned on in PFlow....Turning it off should solve your problem.....

Regards,
Entrancea

jigu
12-28-2007, 09:46 AM
Hello jigu !!
Test the image channels button in the Afterburn Renderer dialog box.
Hope it helps!

Hey thanks n0mad! But i also found another trick with that object motionblur and image motionblur 100% works without enabling image chennel option.

This will work just for object and image motionblur in max not for post.

After adding AB effect to pflow particles. Add shape operator to pflow event and also scale operator as well. Set the shape type to sphere and match the scale of sphere to according to AB sphere size. Now assign material static operator to flow and put matte material in it.
Set the "Apply atomsphere" check box on in matte material and set it to background depth.Also turnoff affect alpha option and Receive shadow option.

Right click pflow and enable motionblur whether object or image. It will work 100% guranted. :D

n0mad
12-28-2007, 02:14 PM
hmmmm..... jigu, very nice solution :thumbsup:.
Thank you for the tip :).

visualchaosfx
12-28-2007, 02:33 PM
Hey ya'll,

Here's a little test clip of the FX sequence that I've been workin on. For right now I just have one meteor hitting a building. No explosion or anything just to see what you guys thought of how the afterburn trail looks in conjunction wih the scene. I've played around with the levels and I think I got it the way I like it.

The only problem I'm having is fading out the trail. I can't seem to get the trail to fade out smoothly instead of choppy as seen in the 2nd clip. Anyways let me know what ya'll think.

http://files.filefront.com/meteor+testmov/;9339907;/fileinfo.html

In this video I elected to use a higher step size to make render times quicker so that is the reason why the AB trail looks like crap in this choppy fade clip video clip.

http://files.filefront.com/choppy+fademov/;9339850;/fileinfo.html

How can I fix this? No matter what I do with the settings in the delete operator, I cannot get the trail to fade out correctly.

This week I rented Armageddon to see exactly how their meteor trails looked like as they zinged by buildings and stuff and I notice that the trails are not as dense in detail as what I have created. So I don't know if I'm making the meteor trails wrong or not. Although I do like how my trails have density and detail though so it shouldn't really matter I guess.

Hordak
01-01-2008, 11:24 PM
Hey ya'll,

Here's a little test clip of the FX sequence that I've been workin on. For right now I just have one meteor hitting a building. No explosion or anything just to see what you guys thought of how the afterburn trail looks in conjunction wih the scene. I've played around with the levels and I think I got it the way I like it.

The only problem I'm having is fading out the trail. I can't seem to get the trail to fade out smoothly instead of choppy as seen in the 2nd clip. Anyways let me know what ya'll think.

http://files.filefront.com/meteor+testmov/;9339907;/fileinfo.html

In this video I elected to use a higher step size to make render times quicker so that is the reason why the AB trail looks like crap in this choppy fade clip video clip.

http://files.filefront.com/choppy+fademov/;9339850;/fileinfo.html

How can I fix this? No matter what I do with the settings in the delete operator, I cannot get the trail to fade out correctly.

This week I rented Armageddon to see exactly how their meteor trails looked like as they zinged by buildings and stuff and I notice that the trails are not as dense in detail as what I have created. So I don't know if I'm making the meteor trails wrong or not. Although I do like how my trails have density and detail though so it shouldn't really matter I guess.

You should control your density and set the end value to 0.

Play with the afc control to time your fade..

Hordak
01-14-2008, 01:37 PM
ok guys... how about some links to reference videos for some AfterBurn or Fume Explosions?

Here's one: (40th sec) http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5807759413221776314&q=explosion&total=95927&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=9

visualchaosfx
01-17-2008, 05:56 PM
For some reason, and I'm having trouble figuring it out, my afterburn clouds aren't casting shadows onto the ground as seen in this example:

http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee320/wildstormfilms/shadow_prob-1.jpg

I have self shadows and shadow cast checked in the Afterburn settings. I'm also using a light with AB Raytraced enabled as well.

BrokenWindow
01-17-2008, 09:54 PM
Do you have the light picked in the Afterburn rollout?

visualchaosfx
01-18-2008, 07:25 PM
Do you have the light picked in the Afterburn rollout?

Yes. Everything checks out. Could it be that maybe my scene is small or something?

n0mad
01-19-2008, 05:37 AM
can you post the scene here ?

nikosX
01-25-2008, 07:23 AM
hi all!

here s something i am trying to figure out:
i am trying to make the dust/debris from an explosion of a chimney. when the particles hit the ground the fireballs from afterburn go half way in the ground. how do i keep them on the ground? if thy had the same size all the way i could do it, but i need them to grow as time goes by..
any thoughts on that?

thanx in advance,
nikosX

Glacierise
01-25-2008, 09:03 AM
That's because the particle pivot collides with your deflector, but the bottom part of the volumetric sphere passes through. You can lift your deflector up from the ground as much as your sphere radius is at the moment of cillision, and make the particles collide earlier, which looks like they collide with the ground with their bottom part and not the pivot.

nikosX
01-25-2008, 10:55 AM
That's because the particle pivot collides with your deflector, but the bottom part of the volumetric sphere passes through. You can lift your deflector up from the ground as much as your sphere radius is at the moment of cillision, and make the particles collide earlier, which looks like they collide with the ground with their bottom part and not the pivot.

thats what i tried to do, but the fireballs are scaling through time, so their center changes over time. also they have variation in size so, thats not possible either way...

thanx for the try though:)

Glacierise
01-25-2008, 11:25 AM
Now another thing comes to my mind - you can use the distance to object AFC to make the density decrease very rapidly in close proximity of the ground.

JohnnyRandom
01-26-2008, 04:40 AM
For some reason, and I'm having trouble figuring it out, my afterburn clouds aren't casting shadows onto the ground as seen in this example:
I have self shadows and shadow cast checked in the Afterburn settings. I'm also using a light with AB Raytraced enabled as well.

Have you got atmosperic shadows checked in your lights params? (under the shadow parameters rollout)

jimmy4d
01-31-2008, 03:01 PM
http://dglove.fatcow.com/flashstuff.html


used allen's CD2 cg acadamy (fire ball). Just thought I would post.

still not done yet.

dimas
02-07-2008, 02:49 AM
I'm trying to make clouds' animation in Afterburner.
Have anybody got some good result in the creation of clouds?
http://keep4u.ru/imgs/b/080207/86/860950910e42e70f63.jpg

nitrocom
02-07-2008, 11:18 AM
Vue is always better than anything else thats for sure!

Glacierise
02-07-2008, 12:41 PM
Wow remakrable similarity!

Scotlad
02-08-2008, 03:39 PM
Hi,

Im having difficulties with a `banding` effect when use my AB-Pflow setup over a long sequence (600 frames) as seen here:

http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/9766/bandingqh0.jpg

Its 3 pflow sources constrained to a spline. When i do it with a short spline over 100 frames its fine but completely loses definition over longer distances..

Anybody experienced this or maybe have a solution?

[edit]

Solved, it`s taken me hours to realise that the spring controller applied to the two attached pflow sources is creating a jitter for some reason. Notice one out of the three sources is fine (no spring just a path constraint)..

jimmy4d
02-11-2008, 01:52 PM
I'm trying to make clouds' animation in Afterburner.
Have anybody got some good result in the creation of clouds?
http://keep4u.ru/imgs/b/080207/86/860950910e42e70f63.jpg


Allens has a great tut on his cg acadamy afterburn cds 1. I also saw one after googling around a bit. But it can do great clouds dude.

amckay
02-20-2008, 03:18 PM
thats great dude!

daniel ferrera did a great tut a few years ago on his site on clouds which might be useful. it used to be on wonderslime.com not sure if it is anymore.

I think I made a freebie tut on 3dluvr.com back in the day that might still be there. not sure :)

jussing
02-20-2008, 08:26 PM
I'm trying to make clouds' animation in Afterburner.
Have anybody got some good result in the creation of clouds?
I'll use this as an excuse to shamelessly promote my own cloud tut, it's not as fancy as Afterburn or Vue, but it uses no plugins. :)

Right-click here to download the tutorial (http://www.duck.dk/tutorials/jussing_cloud_tutorial.pdf)(10 mb PDF)
Right-click here to download the sample animation (http://www.duck.dk/tutorials/jussing_cloud_tutorial.mov) (2 mb Quicktime)

- Jonas

Glacierise
02-21-2008, 09:57 AM
I tried it dude, and could get some decent stuff. Good approach, thanks.

amckay
02-21-2008, 03:23 PM
looks great - nice work jussing

jimmy4d
02-25-2008, 04:09 PM
ok ........I think Iam done. (thanks to allen). Well not only did I learn to use afterburn a lot better but I also learned how to render out in passes and do a lot more with my work using combustion. Thanks again allen. Its off to CD#3. WEEEEEE

I hope you like.......watch the sound it scares the crap out of me every time. http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=Gel6WCF6C1Q

amckay
02-25-2008, 09:58 PM
very nice work mate!

Glacierise
03-05-2008, 06:21 AM
Wow AB4 is out!!!

http://www.afterworks.com/AfterBurn.asp?ID=1

amckay
03-05-2008, 01:32 PM
yes, yes it is!

I was going to release some training material for the new interface etc. prior to its release however the release date crept up on me.

The new AB is a pretty big rehaul, its pretty dope.

Glacierise
03-05-2008, 02:13 PM
Well go for it, it would be interesting! A 'what's new' tour would be great, while I am filling my nights with FFX :)

entrancea
03-06-2008, 01:50 AM
Tons of new feature....Sweet....Are they giving out any demo?

Regards,
Entrancea

amckay
03-06-2008, 02:49 AM
I know you get a demo with my next cg workshop... :P

I assume they will, demo is always lower priority to its release so it will come after.


I'm more excited about it finally having scripting functions exposed. I'm sure this will aid rayfire tools a lot!

entrancea
03-06-2008, 04:10 AM
Cool Mate...I also saw that AB4 would now fuse completely with Fusionwork...So does that mean that FFX + AB4 = Really Really Cool Stuff....:bounce:

Reagards,
Entrancea


PS:-I have started to learn scripting and I have started off with the inbuilt Maxscript reference help files.......What would you recommend me to do to get started with scripting further:) ?

amckay
03-06-2008, 06:45 PM
the maxscript help has learning maxscript stuff, and scriptspot has stuff too. Swami's old stuff was great back in the day. pick apart other peoples scripst etc.

personally I find the best way to learn is to give yourself a goal like.. "I want to generate a fume container with an emitter already assigned when I click a button" or something you find useful and break down each step involved (ie. create fume container, create emitter, adjust settings, assign it to fume container..) and then start to tackle each bit and bridge it all together. learning and looking up in the help file as you go.

Laszlo and Bobo made two good dvd's, laszlo is good for learning and then bobo to take it to the next level. I own both, havent watched them yet, but I will one day!


even simple stuff like making a macroscript button for your spacewarps to have the prefered settings when you start out, like drag to start with x,z,y all at 5% and start -1000 to 1000 in the time settings etc. is a good start, then keep getting more complex as you go!

look at what max is thinking in the script listener etc.

I released those simple tuts last weekend which might help a little bit, again they're on the total basic side just to introduce people a bit to it if they're finding a hard place to start out.

jimmy4d
03-12-2008, 06:23 PM
the maxscript help has learning maxscript stuff, and scriptspot has stuff too. Swami's old stuff was great back in the day. pick apart other peoples scripst etc.

personally I find the best way to learn is to give yourself a goal like.. "I want to generate a fume container with an emitter already assigned when I click a button" or something you find useful and break down each step involved (ie. create fume container, create emitter, adjust settings, assign it to fume container..) and then start to tackle each bit and bridge it all together. learning and looking up in the help file as you go.

Laszlo and Bobo made two good dvd's, laszlo is good for learning and then bobo to take it to the next level. I own both, havent watched them yet, but I will one day!


even simple stuff like making a macroscript button for your spacewarps to have the prefered settings when you start out, like drag to start with x,z,y all at 5% and start -1000 to 1000 in the time settings etc. is a good start, then keep getting more complex as you go!

look at what max is thinking in the script listener etc.

I released those simple tuts last weekend which might help a little bit, again they're on the total basic side just to introduce people a bit to it if they're finding a hard place to start out.



:buttrock: Yeah...........great advice allen. Think of what is going to save you time in the future. Cuz boy I don't know how many times I do the same thing over and over when setting up a scene. when I could just run the script.......sweet dude.

fireknght2
03-15-2008, 02:19 AM
I've tried to install Afterburn 4.0 in 3ds max 9 and everything works up until when I open Max. The plugin is not available although it is present in the Afterworks Folder in Max plugin Directory. I have no idea why it doesn't even show up in the Plug In manager either when Max is open.
The new Dreamscape is good as well as Fume 1.1 but Afterburn is eluding me.
Any help?


Fire:shrug:

JohnnyRandom
03-15-2008, 03:11 AM
If you have 3.2 installed you have to either uninstall it or remove it manually, then AB 4.0 should show up:)

fireknght2
03-15-2008, 03:30 AM
I never had 3.2 installed on the computer I just bought it new. But hey thanks for the idea.

Fire:banghead:

fireknght2
03-15-2008, 08:22 PM
On the same system but in 3ds Max 2008. Matter of fact works better :)
I still need it in 3ds Max 9 though anyone out there know what might be wrong?

Fire:thumbsup:

JohnnyRandom
03-15-2008, 08:58 PM
Interesting, have you checked the max9 plugin ini file in either your local settings or the max root? Also confirmed that the Afterburn 4 folder is in the plugins folder.

fireknght2
03-15-2008, 09:06 PM
It is weird for sure, the plugin shows in the plugin manager in the lower left with all the primary plugins but will not show in the create drop down or the Rendering Atmosphere or effect options. I am baffled?
The helps for all three afterworks in Max 9 under additional help show but will not open when selected either but run fine in 2008. Is this a sign?

Fire
:cry:

JohnnyRandom
03-16-2008, 12:56 AM
In the plugin manager (the top window) do you see AFTERBURN.DLR, AFTERBURN.DLO, AFTERBURN.FLT and do they say "loaded" or "deferred".

fireknght2
03-16-2008, 01:56 AM
only see afterburn in the lower window under description and load path.

Fire:surprised

fireknght2
03-16-2008, 02:13 AM
The Directories parameter set in plugin.ini was set for the folder....\Afterburn.
My folder in the plugin folder was ....\Afterburn4. Thus it did not recognize the path and would not load the .dlo's.
Many thanks Johnny for your help you actually directed me the right way to figure this out was just a matter of looking and figuring it out.

Fire Knight:applause:
Premature elation:shrug: Cannot get helps for Afterburn, Dreamscape or Fume to open in Max 9. Oh well can't have everything.:rolleyes:

luckysniper
03-17-2008, 12:21 PM
Hi All
Really, i'm Very happy to put my first post in this section, and i hope to find an answer to my simple question,

after i Rendered clouds with afterburn as a movie, i find a flickers or very fast animated noise in the cloud, i don't know why?

plz tell me how can i stop this flicker?

everlite
03-17-2008, 01:41 PM
its been answered time and time again in this thread :) do a quick keyword search on flickering, its a pretty common issue when you first get started with AB.

fireknght2
03-17-2008, 03:16 PM
I would really like to get the help for all my afterworks oroducts to open in Max additional help.
Mostly I am concerned with afterburn, can anyone help?

Fire:shrug:

JohnnyRandom
03-17-2008, 03:18 PM
fireknght2 add these entries to your plugin.ini file in the Max root folder...
Your will have to edit the installation drive letter. I don't have Dreamscape but you should
get the idea.

Afterburn 4 Reference=YOUR_INSTALL_DRIVE:\Program Files\Autodesk\3ds Max 9\Help\Afterburn4_ACAP.chm
FumeFX 1.1 Reference=YOUR_INSTALL_DRIVE:\Program Files\Autodesk\3ds Max 9\Help\FumeFX11_ACAP.chm

luckysniper
lower the "Step Size" and it will reduce your flickering.

fireknght2
03-17-2008, 04:05 PM
using the same lines from the Max 2008 plugin ini since they work fine in Max 2008.
I cannot get the script to edir within the directory so I make a copy and pull it out into a new folder then edit with notepad. I copy it back to max plugin ini and the reults are the same.
The afterworks helps Afterburn Dreamscape and Fume FX are the only 3 that will not open in Max. Mental Ray help opens as well as Ray Fire Tool by Mir Vadim. If I go to Max 2008 then all the helps open with no issue.
I thought buy copying and Paste from my other system that I could make it work and that failed as well. I have checked all the scripts in notepad and they appear the same in both the working copies and the copy that doesn't work.


Fire Knight:shrug:

JohnnyRandom
03-17-2008, 04:22 PM
If you close max then edit the plugin.ini you will not have to move things around. Editing base files on an open application...not really recommended.

Well just for the sake of correctness you should just use the max9 help files for max9. If you insist on doing strange things, then well... strange things shall occur...

Check you local settings folder plugin.ini you may have some conflict there. You can actually get rid of the root plugin.ini file as long as all of the information resides in the local settings plugin.ini

PM me if you are still having issues, so it can help reduce some semi-off-topic posting here.

PsychoSilence
03-19-2008, 07:11 PM
i want a working sitnisati tools velocity render element :(

well along with Zbuffer i want, shadow only, velocity, rgb lighting...comp stuff...

fireknght2
03-19-2008, 10:47 PM
Dang Physco you don't ask for much do ya? LOL:buttrock:

What is all that you asked for?

Fire

PsychoSilence
03-19-2008, 11:30 PM
Dang Physco you don't ask for much do ya? LOL:buttrock:

What is all that you asked for?

Fire

well, a z-buffer is already featured if you have AB4...at elast the fusion works renderer should have that element already. still on 3.2 til the current project is through...
velocity as render element or channel would be nice for proper post-motionblur. atm im working on a project where the main layers get rendered with renderman and we use maxs own scanliner for AB fx. so u cant get the right look with given tools...a true volume velocity would ease the pain since renderman is giving out velocity too. could be solved with vector motionblur in comp < meaning not my fu*king problem :D :D :D

rgb lighting would open the possiblity to relight your scene in post without re-rendering by extracting cetain light information by dividing the rendering into R,G and B layers representing one light each.

shadow only is pretty much self explaining...

fireknght2
03-21-2008, 11:36 PM
I understand now, and totally agree that those would really be beneficial to the process. Maybe Sitni reads the forum?
Lets hope they do so there will be some more upgrades.

Fire:thumbsup:

PsychoSilence
03-24-2008, 01:20 PM
when u use ABGlow and MotionBlur together in the evironments/effect tab "Work with Transparency" should be unchecked so u dont get artefacts on matte/shadow object edges.


prolly no news but worth mentioning...

Strob
03-26-2008, 07:32 PM
i want a working sitnisati tools velocity render element :(

well along with Zbuffer i want, shadow only, velocity, rgb lighting...comp stuff...

Did you try rendering instanced spheres on your AB particles in order to render a velocity vector pass?

Stefan-Morrell
03-31-2008, 04:17 PM
has anyone heard from Sitni Sati lately?...I purchased an upgrade to 4.0 a couple weeks ago & still haven't seen a download link..none of my emails are being replied to & the store has been down for the last week
https://afterworks.com/store.asp

:shrug:

JohnnyRandom
03-31-2008, 04:49 PM
I purchased my upgrade through afterworks too, after a week I e-mailed Kreso, they were super busy at the time and had been backed up with other things.

I would drop him a line.:)

Soledine
04-02-2008, 05:07 PM
Hey all,

before i start asking my noob questions :blush: i just wanted to say WOW you guys are really awesome :thumbsup:

the things you all make with Afterburn are magnificent!

now my question hehe,

i did the fireball tutorial, and it came out pretty good.

but now i want to start animating the meteorite so i did, but by animating it i came across a problem.

this is just a test scene btw :blush:

http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/8753/testmeteortd9.jpg

the amount of particles at the beginning are very scattered, it doesnt look like a big fireball.

could maybe anyone point out what i need to change to get that fireball effect at the beginning? to make the particles less scattered?

I thank you for your time you took to read throuh this post!

Solid :D

Stefan-Morrell
04-03-2008, 05:15 AM
I purchased my upgrade through afterworks too, after a week I e-mailed Kreso, they were super busy at the time and had been backed up with other things.

I would drop him a line.:)

thanks,Kreso got hold of me yesterday :)

Strob
04-03-2008, 02:09 PM
Solidgun,

Maybe the best would be to animate the Bias in the "Size" section of the "Noise Shape Parameter" roll out (in ab 3.2) with a curve growing fast from 0.8 as a low value to 0.7 as a high value.

If some particle seems not to be affected enough by the Explode daemon at the tip, you may also want to put a gradient in your ambient color. the gradient must be using a light color only at the begining of the particles life.

Soledine
04-03-2008, 03:24 PM
Solidgun,

Maybe the best would be to animate the Bias in the "Size" section of the "Noise Shape Parameter" roll out (in ab 3.2) with a curve growing fast from 0.8 as a low value to 0.7 as a high value.

If some particle seems not to be affected enough by the Explode daemon at the tip, you may also want to put a gradient in your ambient color. the gradient must be using a light color only at the begining of the particles life.

Thank you very much!

will try that when i get home!

thank you again! :D

JohnnyRandom
04-03-2008, 10:10 PM
thanks,Kreso got hold of me yesterday :)

no problem, excellent:)

Soledine
04-05-2008, 03:08 PM
Solidgun,

Maybe the best would be to animate the Bias in the "Size" section of the "Noise Shape Parameter" roll out (in ab 3.2) with a curve growing fast from 0.8 as a low value to 0.7 as a high value.

If some particle seems not to be affected enough by the Explode daemon at the tip, you may also want to put a gradient in your ambient color. the gradient must be using a light color only at the begining of the particles life.

i tried this, the ambient color really makes it look better! thank you! :thumbsup:

but i still have the same problem, i animated the Bias but that didnt change much :sad:

could it possibly be that iam working to small? that my emitter is to small to work good?

Elhaq
04-08-2008, 04:49 PM
Hy all,
im having a strange problem, when i render something i always get some artifacts (i mean like white/black points, see picture)... Im using AB4.0 with Max9.
Thx,

http://img227.imageshack.us/my.php?image=87092259uv1.jpg

Soledine
04-09-2008, 07:53 PM
Hy all,
im having a strange problem, when i render something i always get some artifacts (i mean like white/black points, see picture)... Im using AB4.0 with Max9.
Thx,

http://img227.imageshack.us/my.php?image=87092259uv1.jpg (http://img227.imageshack.us/my.php?image=87092259uv1.jpg)

Wow! that looks amazing!

would you mind telling us how you did that?

the white/black points look to me as a render problem, to me it doesnt seem like a AB generated problem, i had that myself a few times with some simple models.

will get back to you about a possible solution tomorrow if you dont mind.

nitrocom
04-10-2008, 09:42 AM
Render it with vray and it will be ok!

This is a problem that occured in max 2008, Ithink this is probably a plug-in vs. renderer problem...

I dont have any clue about how to fix it in scanline...

Soledine
04-10-2008, 12:38 PM
dont know if this works with the scanline render but try to adjust your subdivisions in your light?

I dont have the time to test it out for you at the moment, sorry

amckay
04-15-2008, 12:49 AM
I was just posting this on the pflow forum so figured I'd post here too, I just did a quick walk through of AB4's new features in the video below.
www.allanmckay.com/tut/AB4_Intro.avi

New maxscript tut which is basically covering how to read values in a max file and write them out to a text file, as well as read in files from a specific directory etc. Just a bit more left field examples of maxscript rather than reading object properties etc.
www.allanmckay.com/tut/maxscript_03.avi

PsychoSilence
04-15-2008, 10:55 AM
link doesnt work here :(

EDIT: works, its just me that is not even able to right click properly :D

EDIT#2: Concurrent downloaimit exceeded. :cry:

pixel9
04-15-2008, 12:23 PM
Yup! - Allan seems to have those issues quite often these days.

I downloaded the first video. Should I upload it for you?

PsychoSilence
04-15-2008, 12:25 PM
got it in the meantime :) thank you very much anyways :bowdown:

pixel9
04-15-2008, 12:29 PM
No problem - :wavey:

feldy
04-16-2008, 06:16 PM
Hey guys Just got the new ab4 here at work... Wtf happend to my shadows things that looked right in 3.4 look pretty jacked now....you guys getting the same issues? Also my edges of smoke are no longer nice soft edges but allmost completey round and hard ect. -jeremy

aomay
04-23-2008, 09:15 AM
Hi, I am trying to render AfterBurn's ground shadow, and applied matte/shadow material to the ground . But the resault is incorrect
( Pic below )
I havn't ecounter this problem since AfterBurn 4.0 till this version

wreath
04-25-2008, 11:07 PM
Anybody have an idea why it's happening? (weird circle patterns) :D
max 2008+ab 4.0
http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/2864/abpxm2.jpg

PsychoSilence
04-25-2008, 11:43 PM
@ wreath: look up your step size and shadow samples. they might be too low.

wreath
04-25-2008, 11:47 PM
@ wreath: look up your step size and shadow samples. they might be too low.

Hey Anselm thanks i tried but nothing changed but i solved it, just used final render now everything looks ok i don't understand why this happening on scanline

feldy
04-26-2008, 01:32 AM
oh god i have been getting the same issues. none of my particle systems pre ab4 work in ab4 they are all screwed up bad... even all the ones from any of allans mckays afterburn dvds there all broken..................................................................................................................... its like wtf happend here... its like i dont have time to go back and fix it.. might just have to get rid of ab4 for now and go back to 3.2 im not happy about the changes regarldess if it made rendertimes better the time you need to go back and tweak or redo the ab shader makes it the new rendertimes worthless....

Debneyink
05-01-2008, 10:37 PM
This ones for Allan,

im curious as to what codecs you use for your tuts and videos. I've been watching ones on your site and some of them are streaming fine, but the others i seem to have to download and then am unable to view? just get a colorful noise effect at the top of my avi player!. I have many types of codecs but seem to have a problem with yours.

the ones i watch are great by the way!


www.chrisdebney.com (http://www.chrisdebney.com)

ThunderDog
05-02-2008, 02:12 PM
Hi guys thought i would post this, as it uses mainly Afterburn for a Vampire "blade style" death.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BHPClrc9TI

Cheers for looking.

D.

TwiiK
05-10-2008, 09:51 PM
Hi everyone.

I recently got the chance to try out Afterburn. I tinkered with it for some hours and ended up with these two small animations:

Oil fire (http://www.twiik.net/files/videos/AB_oilfire.mov)
Meteor
(http://www.twiik.net/files/videos/AB_meteor.mov)
I like that I can use Afterburn with Particle Flow because that lets me learn about particle systems while letting me create some great effects at the same time. :)

I'm really tempted to buy this plugin to try and do some cool effects, but there's some stuff I'm wondering about.

I haven't seen any tutorials or examples out there on how to create some really realistic explosions and effects in Afterburn. From what I've seen they mostly show you how to create some effects ranging from simple to advanced and then you're told you can take it to the next level by tweaking it further. I just don't see how you can turn what I've seen from Afterburn into something more or less photoreal.

Is there so much more to creating a realistic effect than I think? :p Like compositing, complex simulations, multiple plugins, multiple render passes, advanced renderers or can it be done to some degree with Afterburn and the scanline renderer?

I just want to see some good examples of what can be done with Afterburn. I've searched around and I can't seem to find much. You would think they would be all over the Afterworks site, but there's hardly anything there and what's there seem to be outdated. I've found some on youtube, but the quality there is so horrid anything looks good. :)

This is just so I have something to strive for if I get the plugin.

Is there alternatives to Afterburn for creating awesome explosions within 3ds max? Or alternatives to Afterburn and FumeFX at all? I've only see those two names mentioned when talking about cg pyrotechnics, but yet they don't seem to be used in that many movies. How do they create the cg fire and explosions for the rest of the movies out there? :)

Or do they infact still composite in real footage of explosions and fire in movies?

(http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/transformers-opener-0707.jpg)I found this (http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/transformers-opener-0707.jpg) image where there's some very realistic fire attached to a cg truck (If I'm not totally mistaken). Is that fire cg or is it footage of real fire composited into the scene?

Btw, would anyone know some great web sites or books to read up on how they create explosions, fire, effects and such for modern movies?

Sorry if this is long, unreadable and/or uninteresting, but I just want to kick start my interest in special effects. :)

Strob
05-11-2008, 01:33 AM
Hi Twiik.

Houdini is also used a lot in movies. There was some really good explosions in Transformers (when some meteors are falling on earth) done with houdini particles and the volume shader (that looks a bit like afterburn). Within renderman you can also render sprite with self shadow that also do the trick to render thick smoke (using deep shadow). You can also in maya use fluid on particles (but it is soooo long to render compared to afterburn). And if you want a more soft smoke you can also use sprite that when they are well animated can really look realistic. About fire, it's a bit like water, very difficult to reach photorealism. You sometimes have no choice to mix in real footage to make the fire look photoreal and you have a lot to do in comp to make it look real depending on the footage.

Big studios like ILM, MPC and Sony Pictures Imageworks also have their own in-house software to create fire, smoke and water. Like flowline (http://www.flowlines.info/).

I suggest you to read the magazine Cinefex to learn more about which software is being used in FX intensive movies.

TwiiK
05-11-2008, 10:24 AM
Thanks for a very comprehensive reply.

I suspected Houdini was used in movies, but neither google nor youtube gave me some cool Houdini effects to look at. I guess movie effects are kept in house by the studios who made them. :)

Cinefex was a good tip, I will check that one out.

But the question still remains:

Are there no "cg effects for production", "afterburn for production", "cg explosions for production"-dvd's out there? :) Similar to the gnomon "for production"-dvd's which teach you advanced workflows, multiple applications and so fourth.

Also, I would really like if someone has some really good examples of what Afterburn can do. I've googled alot, but come up empty handed.

charleyc
05-11-2008, 03:12 PM
Allen Mckay is one who could answer this well. I know he has used AB on films in the past. If I am not mistaken, the launch sequence of Apollo 13 and the semi-truck head on in the second Matrix films and some of the storm seen from space in Day After Tomorrow used AB (I know those are older films, but they are the only ones I know of off the top of my head). AB is certainly capable of feature film quality effects. Houdini's popularity is not really (or solely rather) as a replacement for AB. Houdini's power goes way beyond its volumetric rendering tools and has really become one of the primary effects tools in the industry today doing effects across the board, but it is not cheap (although they offer a good educational price :) ).

3dsMax with AB is still a powerful combination. Try looking into DVD's by Allen, you can find some here (http://www.cg-academy.net/) and I think TurboSquid offers some. But you don't necessarily need so see high quality examples to create them. Find yourself some good reference (even if it is exceptionally well done effects created by other artists) and work on reproducing it. There are a lot of really good explosion reference as well as weather reference available online.

CapitanRed
05-11-2008, 03:19 PM
If I remember right the meteor hit in the motorola pebls commercial is also done with afterburn.

I think, the biggest and hardest thing beside it's own settings is the lightning. It can extremly improve the look of the volumetrics.

jussing
05-11-2008, 03:24 PM
Are there no "cg effects for production", "afterburn for production", "cg explosions for production"-dvd's out there?There's an awesome Allan Mckay CGWorkshop going on right now, called "VFX for feature film", which covers exactly that. Maybe if enough people ask for it, he'll do a re-run. :)

- Jonas

TwiiK
05-11-2008, 08:13 PM
That workshop sure sounds cool, but I'm guessing it's aimed at more dedicated and professional people than me. I will go through the fundamentals before I look for stuff like that. :)

I wasn't mainly looking for advanced tutorial dvd's or workshops. What I was looking for was some really impressive renders of Afterburn just showcasing what it can do, and in term convincing me that I had to have this plugin.

Anyhow, I've spent the last 3 hours reading this thread from start to finish (including wathcing every video and going to every external link :p) and I've decided to get Afterburn along with some tutorial dvd's. :)

I really enjoyed it when I got to try out this plugin and I would like to learn alot more about particle flow while creating cool effects with Afterburn.

Even though Andy Murdock's Lots of Robots is like 4 years old I still think it has some of the best Afterburn effects I've seen as of now, not counting those you mention in commercial films.

My main gripe with all this was the lack of really good Afterburn renders on the Afterworks web site. Just some screen caps of Murdocks dvd in their gallery or reference section would probably have instantly convinced me this plugin rocks.

I will pick up Afterburn, Murdock's dvd's and Allan McKay's 3 CG Academy dvd's. That should be enough to get me started.

See you soon. :D

Strob
05-12-2008, 12:31 AM
Just to add something to this conversation about ABurn in movies. A while ago I really wondered how they did the volcano huge plume in Lord of The Ring. I thought it was a bit better than what Aburn can do and I was wondering if there was another secret software weapon to do such beautiful thick smoke... Finally I found the answer and I was very surprised to discover it was just a matte painting constructed from many hi-rez photographs and it was then slowly animated in comp. That's all. So every effect is always very shot specific and sometimes we don't have to search very far in sophisticated techniques to do a really good effect.

feldy
05-12-2008, 01:33 AM
also i know somewhere on here Allan said he used ab on Superman returns. Dont let ab fool you its still good. Fume is better for things like fire ect http://brandonriza.com/3DVisualEffects/HTML/3DVisualEffects.htm

I hear a lot of this is a mix of fume and ab. all max though.

TwiiK
05-12-2008, 10:02 PM
Hmm... I know I'm not the one to express my thoughts on this subject seeing as I've only used Afterburn for like 5 hours, but are the new shadows in AB 4 a downgrade?

First of all:

- They seem to render faster if I leave the shadow size at the default 128, but that looks horrendous no matter what resolution I render at. If I up it to something like 1k or 2k I get insane computing times before my actual render and the outcome still isn't as good as raytraced shadows.

- For some reason my effects are now casting shadows every time I turn on "self shadowing" in the AB panel even though "shadow cast" is turned off.

What do you guys think? Anyone tried AB 4 here?

I just thought I would throw this out there before I went to bed as maybe someone here know exactly what I'm doing wrong. :)

holycause
05-13-2008, 02:27 PM
http://www.allanmckay.com/tut/AB4_Intro.avi

allan explain the new features of AB4 ;)

and buy this 2 dvds as well:

http://www.turbosquid.com/FullPreview/index.cfm/ID/236836

http://www.turbosquid.com/FullPreview/index.cfm/ID/309665

and if you wanna start with FumeFX;

http://www.turbosquid.com/FullPreview/index.cfm/ID/384802

http://workshops.cgsociety.org/courses/000070/

TwiiK
05-13-2008, 03:00 PM
Uhm, lol. Where did that random Allan Mckay promotion come from? :)

I have watched his AB 4 intro, twice, and I have his cg academy AB masters set.

He uses an older (probably much older) version of AB in the AB masters set and in the AB 4 intro he gracefully dodges my shadow problems by leaving the shadow map size on 256 thus getting good render times on his simple effect while it still looking good.

And he doesn't have a ground plane or something for the effect to cast shadows onto.

So I would like some feedback from someone who has tried AB 4 themselves.

CapitanRed
05-13-2008, 03:27 PM
what is actually the problem. can you post an example?
for the shadow cast off and still casting shadows i don't know...:shrug:

holycause
05-13-2008, 03:41 PM
like my swiss friend, i don't understand what's your problem.

if you can post some screen shots or your file.

TwiiK
05-13-2008, 04:16 PM
Don't really get how my problem is so hard to understand. *shakes his head*

First of all, like I said, the new AB Shadow map seem to give both worse results and longer rendering times than the old Raytraced shadows. Of course it renders faster when you leave the size to something like the default 128, but you have to up to something like 1 or 2k for it to look good and then it takes a looong time to render. That's not something I can post a picture of - I was merely asking your opinions on this.

Secondly my effects in AB 4 cast shadows even when I have "shadow cast" turned off. I could of course post an image of this, but it wouldn't show much more than what I just said. :)

Also, this happens in any file so I can't see much use in posting a file either.

I will however give you both a file and an image when I get home from work.

TwiiK
05-13-2008, 06:44 PM
As promised:

A scene with the problem and a screendump of the attached scene showing how it looks for me. It is like that in any scene.

The scene is just default scanline max with a plane, an omni light with AB shadow map enabled, an spotlight with AB shadow map, a particle flow with AB effect applied.

Things to note:

- Look at how crappy the shadows look. :p The size is only 128, but they look crappy at 256 and even 512 as well and with 512 the render time is massive compared to the raytraced shadows of Afterburn 3.2.

- Notice that "shadow cast" is off in the AB panel, but my effect is still casting shadows on the plane.

- It doesn't show in the image, but 'Atmosphere Shadows' is turned off in both lights like it says in the AB4 documentation.

CapitanRed
05-14-2008, 01:06 PM
all right, now as you posted the Image I now what you mean. I addmit, it is not a nice shadow..but there are ways to get nice shadows without just increasing the shadow map size.

look at the image:

http://www.megalomania.ch/capitanred/forum_posts/ABshadowSettings.jpg

I did'nt set the shadow map size bigger than the render width, as it makes no sense for me.only if you would zoom into the shadow with the camera, it would make sense(at least for me)
I use the halton supersampling method, as the manual says, it's for best quality, because it adds extra samples in contrast area ;)

then, in AB4 we have stepsize and falloff for shadows and the volumetrics itself, which is great

unfortunately i couldn't use your file, as i am in max9.
I rendered the frame 10 of this AB4_shadows_Max9_32bit.max (http://www.megalomania.ch/capitanred/forum_posts/AB4_shadows_Max9_32bit.max) file.

concerning the shadowcasting when shadowcasting is set to off: it happens here too...
only thing you can do to avoid it is to exclude your floor from the light.

hope i could help :)

TwiiK
05-14-2008, 02:30 PM
Yes, you helped quite a bit.

Good to know the shadow casting is a bug and not just me. :)

I rendered out frame 10 of you file and I still think those shadows are slow, that supersampling was awfully slow on my machine.

I don't really understand your setup either. :) The supersampling doubled my rendering time, but did nothing for the outcome.

In fact I changed the shadow type of the light to normal raytraced shadows and turned on atmosphere shadows. The rendering time was the same as your example, but I had more detail in my shadows. (Note that I had to change some settings like turn on cast shadows, turn up shadow falloff, turn up step size etc. in the AB panel to make it look the same as yours, but it did look identical with the exact same rendering time)

I just can't remember that shadows was this slow in 3.2, and I don't like having to fiddle with shadow sizes and such now. :p

I've always looked at shadow maps as an outdated shadow type and never used them for anything before.

Guess I just have to live with it.

feldy
05-14-2008, 09:10 PM
my biggest problem is the new shadow map shadows as well. i use ab to make smoke and explsion sprites ect for use in games. Everything that I had done in ab3.2 does not transfer over to the new system. you have to re do the fing ab shader to make it work. i mean come the hell on leave the old ray traced system in and let the ppl decide what there going to use. I have everyone of those ab dvds from Mckay from both turbosquid and cgacedmey none of his files work right either in the new ab4. its a joke. im very unhappy with this release bug fixes or not...... i know most of this is being advoided by most ppl as they have moved on to fumefx but fumefx in games right now is just overkill and ab was a great soultuion for smoke shaders and explosion sprites and so on.

Debneyink
05-14-2008, 09:54 PM
I guess you need to ask yourself did you get the results you needed with 3.2 if you did and were happy, then stick with it, im still using max 9 and will be until its ripped out of my dying hands, i think its perfect for what im doing and havent found the need to move up yet, i know i will have to eventually (due to working with other peoples files) but im hearing you cant get this that doesn't work, theres a bug in that! so im not wasting my time finding that out and spending my time working instead!


No offense to software developers we need them to constantly evolve of course, its clever stuff and way above my head, but they also need us to get the results we desire.

So maybe make up with 3.2 and love your raytraced shadows?

www.chrisdebney.com (http://www.chrisdebney.com)

feldy
05-14-2008, 10:02 PM
maybe... i still have my ab3.2 at home. and had 3.2 at my old studio now at a new studio and they got ab4 all my old presets no longer work correct ect. i didnt upgrade it its how they got it from turbosquid. I should email them and see if i can use the 3.2 installer with my ab4 lic.

charleyc
05-14-2008, 10:08 PM
... im still using max 9 and will be until its ripped out of my dying hands, i think its perfect for what im doing and havent found the need to move up yet, i know i will have to eventually (due to working with other peoples files) but im hearing you cant get this that doesn't work, theres a bug in that! so im not wasting my time finding that out and spending my time working instead!...

Actually, if you are using R9 Extension 1 then you are putting up with several bugs that have been fixed in R2008. I have learned not to trust all that others post as far as bugs are concerned. If it is easily reproducible, then check it out, but a lot of people post 'bugs' that are really their own lack of knowledge of how the program works. And many times, the benefits you get out weigh the issues unless you are hit with a show stopper (one that cannot be worked around) in your primary work flow. That being said, I couldn't agree more, that if what you have is working, don't change just to change.

Debneyink
05-14-2008, 11:18 PM
yeah, youre right progress and development is good but freaking out at four in the morning cause youve got a problem with your new plugin aint! I guess that's what im on about.

it's all relative to the individual project. which im waiting for to prompt me to move to a higher max.

CapitanRed
05-17-2008, 12:01 PM
That being said, I couldn't agree more, that if what you have is working, don't change just to change.

Of course!
But in this special case it was hard to decide, because of fumefx1.1.
just to not to see only the bad side of it, you can render now AB and Fume together.

TwiiK:
:) The supersampling doubled my rendering time, but did nothing for the outcome.

You're right. Was my fault to set it on ;). so without supersampling it renders the same shadow, which is not that bad in my opinion, in a short time :)

Soledine
05-31-2008, 11:53 PM
hey all,

i ran into a problem with making clouds in afterburn, hopefully you can help me out with this.

I made a few skyscrapers only boxes now to test out the animation en afterburn clouds, but i ran into the problem that making big clouds make the clouds look terrible.

i used the cloud tutorial for afterburn and the clouds came out great in a small scale but when i enlarge the particles it looks very bad.

does anyone know a solution for my problem?

Kind regards,

Solid

TwiiK
06-01-2008, 01:46 PM
What do you mean by small scale? Is small scale 1 cloud and big scale a whole sky filled with clouds or are you talking about 1 small cloud being scaled up?

Do you scale your noise maps and everything proportional to the scale of the particle?

Also, if you did a small scale and it looked good, why not do the large scale with just more particles?

Soledine
06-01-2008, 03:29 PM
What do you mean by small scale? Is small scale 1 cloud and big scale a whole sky filled with clouds or are you talking about 1 small cloud being scaled up?

Do you scale your noise maps and everything proportional to the scale of the particle?

Also, if you did a small scale and it looked good, why not do the large scale with just more particles?

Thanks for the fast reply!

i want a sky filled with clouds, but when i enlarge the pclouds to around 500 meters wide it doesnt look so good.

so i scaled the particles to around 3600 but then it just doesnt look good, i just changed the noise map as well and it allready looks good but iam not there just yet hehe.

it also takes up ALLOT of my pc power :p but i will have to deal with that hehe.

Thanks for the reply, it made things a bit more clear!

Thanks again

CapitanRed
06-02-2008, 03:37 PM
Final Render with AA turned on renders 3 times faster. I didn't belive the guy that told me this before I tried myself :D

You can add more omni lights into the cloud to get more realism.

fireknght2
06-10-2008, 08:06 PM
I need to create a muzzleflash effect that provides smoke after the flame effect. I also need the ability to apply the effect randomly to several different guns at one time, similiar to a old warship sailing vessel with cannons.
Can anyone please give me some guidance here, a good tutorial, anything that I can use.

Fire Knight:shrug:

DAZZAN
07-16-2008, 10:03 PM
Geometry Clipping option enables that particles that are contained inside geometry do not render outside of it.

Can anyone please tell me if this geometry clipping option is what i percieve it to be.

A polygon mesh is made.

A character perhaps,humanoid.

it is filled with particles with pflow.

the mesh is animated upper body torso no legs,and the particles rendered with after burn give you a BASIC shape of a cloud person,no details,just the making of a definate shape.

if so the problem is this,will it give a squished effect as it pushes against the mesh,or can the clipping be controled with a random softness,such as the cloud keeps its shape but still stays inside the polyobject,but the squish is less.


then a lot of tweaking inside pflow and ab with particle sizes an other tweaks to get the look right.

i was wondering if this option was a starting point of a solution ive been looking for.

Sorry had to ask as it keeps bugging me.

many thanks

Strob
07-16-2008, 10:53 PM
If the character is animated you will get a lot of poping. I think geometry clipping work only on non animated shape. And you don't have control over the clipping softness.

But what are you looking for exactly?

DAZZAN
07-17-2008, 07:50 AM
If the character is animated you will get a lot of poping. I think geometry clipping work only on non animated shape. And you don't have control over the clipping softness.

But what are you looking for exactly?

Interesting,you did not say this function did not hold the particles together,so thats its Job?
The answer on the clipping is sad but always some kind of work around,as a lot of people might not want a squashed flat look.

Its a difficult one this,as it involves pflow and afterburn,and im not sure which part of the effect will be needed to get the look.

So ill try to explain exactly.

Animation would be nice,and the popping would have to be worked on.

But at the momment a static 3d humanoid,that could be animated with bones,no quick movements at all,slow smooth.

If the object could give me a decent identifiable shape,i would like the clouds to grow animated to a size of my humanoid,then freeze the particles so all i have is either a growing (birth animation or already fully grown.)

Then select groups of particles and make them smaller or larger(or take all of them away from mesh wall,so not squished)and then resize groups to adjust the Stormy dark look.

So if i play the anim back,ab clouds do NOT animate(phase),but im happy with the look,and i can revolve the camera around my character in 3d.

ok ,i then try takeing out the results and into a compositing program and then either morph tweak or warp parts to give some soft animation to the clouds.

also have considers makeing two animations without phase on them and morphing inside compositer.

So if i get up to this point,my render size is high.(very)

i understand that the results might not be a all in one solution such as max.

My cloud demon would hopefully look a little like the Mercedes cloud gods commercial that the 60 man team did.....heh hee ha ahaaha ha ah ha ha ha.

ok enough with the madness.

with thanks

dazzan

DAZZAN
07-19-2008, 01:18 PM
thanks to spideman 3 ,lots of particle objects and sand or water on youtube ,but no clouds.

will test,test ,test.i think there is a solution to this. a few sand object tuts out there,so i will start with sand.Fantasy clouds still might be out of reach for a single user maybe?

regards

Glacierise
07-21-2008, 10:46 AM
There is a good clouds tut that ships with Afterburn. The other stuff you were talking about... You need to test that idea - won't be as simple as you plan it now.

holycause
07-21-2008, 12:06 PM
check this one ;)

http://www.allanmckay.com/tut/AB4_Intro.avi

DAZZAN
07-21-2008, 09:00 PM
I think testing through stages will help me,and perhaps the first stage will be particle creation of my desired shape,stage 2 and 3 will be the hardest,and i mean that as i search cg talk,the holy grail for maya seems to be getting hands and body parts to look right with clouds,they look like cotton wool buds,so these stages will be the hardest,but ill have to give up if it means getting into heavy scripting,dont wish to though.

Then i keep thinking about the shape i want and the afterburn octane shader to shade them,and playing with particle sizes,but dont animate the movement of parrticles,and test if some kind of morphtool can be include to give little but realism to a fantasy character.

ill go away and do some thinking,have always thought this would be hard,ill post my results.

with thanks

daz

tasiek
07-23-2008, 08:14 PM
Hi guys!

I have a little issue with AB. I have 200 frames long animation, but in noise phase AFC controller I have only 0-100 range. In Sphere Radius AFC is as should be, 0-200. Any idea? The problem is that after 100th frame, noise stops animating by phase parameter.
I have tried setting particle life via delete operator in PF, or in AB particle properties....

Thanks!

Glacierise
07-24-2008, 06:33 AM
The 0-100 is the life in percentage, not in frames ;)

TwiiK
07-24-2008, 06:56 AM
I haven't touched AB in a long time, but if I remember correctly it is the percentage of your particle life, not your total frame count.

So if you have a particle spawned at frame 0 with a delete operator set to delete them at frame 60, then 100 in the AFC equals 60 frames of particle life, and 50 in the AFC would equal 50% of the particles life so 30 frames. The total frame count of your animation doesn't matter.

I've been told you should always have a delete operator with afterburn or else the AFC's won't work properly because of what I stated above.

Just trying to clear things up in case there were some misunderstandings. :)

(if I'm wrong then please correct me)

Enlightenment
07-25-2008, 09:25 AM
I don't have AB but a thread in the main Max forum about Max' volumetrics quirks got me wondering about how/if AB handles volume lights. Can an AB user give me some information?

Does Afterburn interact properly with Max's built-in volume lights with regard to shadow casting? I.e. if you were to put a distant volume light above an group of AB clouds, would you get a sun-streamer type effect below the clouds?

Thanks.

Glacierise
07-25-2008, 09:35 AM
That needs a clarification. The volume lights simulate participating media(water/dust in the air, for example), without the participating media being there. The volumetrics, like AB, create the participating media. AB defines color/density for a point sample in 3D space, so every light that shines on it can be volumetric.

CapitanRed
07-25-2008, 09:52 AM
I think what he wants to know is, if you get voulmelight shadows from the clouds, which is true :)
didn't know that...

Enlightenment
07-25-2008, 09:47 PM
I think what he wants to know is, if you get voulmelight shadows from the clouds, which is true :)

Yes, that's what I wanted to know. Thanks.

Kanga
07-31-2008, 10:05 PM
Anyone have any handy hints for using vray with AB 4. If anyone knows about some online info that would be great.

Muchly appreciated in advance:cool:
Chris

Chewky
08-04-2008, 05:44 AM
Hey Guys,

I just bought Afterburn 4.0 for 3ds Max 2009 and it keep crashing during render. I only have 2 particle objects, a spot light, and an omni light. I've narrowed it down to the omni light causing the crashes. When the omni light is too close to either one of the clouds, it causes 3ds to crash.

Is there a workaround this?

Thanks!

-david

UPDATE:

It still crashes even when I render with Brazil Rio using standard omnis.

Kanga
08-04-2008, 10:08 AM
IN the tutorials I have done dont they use a direct light? Maybe that will help.

Cheerio Chris

Chewky
08-04-2008, 04:00 PM
But other users of Afterburn have reported that omni lights are commonly used to create explosion effects. No other settings seem to be out of the ordinary, 3ds 2009 is just crashing. I also did a clean install of 3ds 2009 before I installed Afterburn 4.0, so what gives?

jussing
08-04-2008, 08:50 PM
But other users of Afterburn have reported that omni lights are commonly used to create explosion effects.I can confirm this.

I think Mckay can too, it wouldn't have been possible to complete his "VFX for film" workshop without using omnis with AfterBurn, it was practicallly standard setup.

- Jonas

EricTT
08-07-2008, 05:35 PM
afterburn & matte material question,I make a smoke on the sea,I give the sea the matte matte material,I don't check the matte materia's apply atmosphere,the afterburn smoke and the sea overlap part the afterburn smoke disappear,look like the smoke behind the sea,actually the smoke is in the middle of the sea plane.I check the matte materia's apply atmosphere,the smoke under the water appear,what goes????? How to solve the question?

CapitanRed
08-07-2008, 05:41 PM
check at object depth...

EricTT
08-07-2008, 06:07 PM
check at object depth...
It works,thank you very much!:)

Strob
08-07-2008, 06:39 PM
Hey Guys,

I just bought Afterburn 4.0 for 3ds Max 2009 and it keep crashing during render. I only have 2 particle objects, a spot light, and an omni light. I've narrowed it down to the omni light causing the crashes. When the omni light is too close to either one of the clouds, it causes 3ds to crash.

Is there a workaround this?

Thanks!

-david

UPDATE:

It still crashes even when I render with Brazil Rio using standard omnis.
Do you use ABshadow (with athmosphere shadow unchecked?) And if yes which size are you use using for the shadow map?

I noticed ABshadow map crashing when increasing shadow map size above 128.

Dreamie
08-09-2008, 03:38 PM
Hi all,

I have the first Afterburn Masters DVD but I noticed it's based on Afterburn 3 and I'm using Afterburn 4 with max9.

While not *too much* was changed in the controls, what bothers me most is that the simple default render you get out of Afterburn4 is much different then the initial first default render shown in the DVD. Allan shows a simple render out of a 2 unit pflow emiter and the default render is quite dense and just by adding a light and self shadow it turns out to be a think dense volcano smoke.

When I do the exact setting its not as dense and overall looks completely different..

*edit*
Ok I think I found the main different default thing that made it look so different. I guess AB3 used a Turbulence noise type as default and AB4 uses an FBM Fractal instead.
Changing it to FBM Fractal and increasing the levels makes it closer to the look I was after.

TwiiK
08-10-2008, 08:52 AM
Another difference you may not be aware of is that AB4 uses the the new AB Shadow map on a very low setting as default (I think).

While Allan in those dvd's use the AB Ray Traced shadows. To get results similar to the AB Ray Traced shadows in AB4 you can use normal ray traced shadows with atmospheric shadows enabled. I have AB4 and I use normal ray traced shadows for many of my effects because I can't stand fiddling with the parameters of shadow maps when ray traced shadows seem to give perfect results always.

I haven't opened max in months so this is just taken from memory. :)

Dreamie
08-10-2008, 04:48 PM
Another difference you may not be aware of is that AB4 uses the the new AB Shadow map on a very low setting as default (I think).

While Allan in those dvd's use the AB Ray Traced shadows. To get results similar to the AB Ray Traced shadows in AB4 you can use normal ray traced shadows with atmospheric shadows enabled. I have AB4 and I use normal ray traced shadows for many of my effects because I can't stand fiddling with the parameters of shadow maps when ray traced shadows seem to give perfect results always.

I haven't opened max in months so this is just taken from memory. :)

Thanks for your reply.. Yes I noticed the shadows has changed too. Although it's now called AB Shadow Map, there's also an AB Shadow Map rollout and under Object Shadow the default is checked on Use "Ray Traced Shadows". So I figured it's still using ray traced shadows.. Enabling the atmosphere shadows makes the render much slower, but anyhow.. I'll check it as you suggested and compare with the quality result.

EricTT
09-08-2008, 06:49 AM
how to make the afterburn render fast?I made a
explosion scenes with pf and afterburn,the particle's amount is only 20.Afterburn setup size is 5,the density is to 0 when the particle die,my compute is win xp 64bit ,4G RAM ,8 cores CPU,I render size is 1920*1080,when render the animation nealy end ,the time is 3 hours more one frame it is too slow,if I increase the setup size it is faster,but the animation will flash.if you have the same question?how to control the afterburn to balance the time and the animation'squality ?

CapitanRed
09-08-2008, 08:52 AM
lower density = longer computation time

use final render, renders about 3 times faster than scanline. and maybe don't render full res, but only the half of it, or 2/3.
check if you have lights casting shadows which are not really nescessary, or doesn't really affect the look of the clouds, smoke...or what ever it is.

EricTT
09-08-2008, 09:48 AM
lower density = longer computation time

use final render, renders about 3 times faster than scanline. and maybe don't render full res, but only the half of it, or 2/3.
check if you have lights casting shadows which are not really nescessary, or doesn't really affect the look of the clouds, smoke...or what ever it is.


But I use final render ,my max9 will crash,my smoke must disappear so the density must be zero,the question can't be avoided

CapitanRed
09-08-2008, 09:57 AM
I didn't mean not to go to 0 of density. it was more like an explanation...
I have no problems with max9 and AB. never crashed.
only when rendering in 64bit version with GI in FR.

If you could send a file..without objects and stuff, I'd have a look at it if you like.

EricTT
09-09-2008, 02:35 AM
I didn't mean not to go to 0 of density. it was more like an explanation...
I have no problems with max9 and AB. never crashed.
only when rendering in 64bit version with GI in FR.

If you could send a file..without objects and stuff, I'd have a look at it if you like.
this is my scene http://www.sendspace.com/file/hkofeg when render with fr ,my max will crash,crash,......

EricTT
09-09-2008, 02:47 AM
and when I pick the button down ,the max will crash later!

PsychoSilence
09-09-2008, 03:09 AM
i can confirm serveral max crashes with the preview window in the afterburn menu in max 2008-64.i just ended up not using it :D i rendered crops for visual feedback...

depleteD
09-09-2008, 03:13 AM
Ive had this crash as well, it sucks dude

EricTT
09-09-2008, 05:42 AM
I want to know afterburn vs pyrocluster which is better ,faster?I want to know you render afterburn with fr, scanle or vr?how much the longest render time for afterburn did you use?

CapitanRed
09-09-2008, 07:13 AM
the first thing that pops into my eye is that you have an afterburn render and a fusionworks renderer in the environment tab. afterburn renderer was before version 4. so there might be the problem. check your ysytem fro proper installation. there was the same problem allready posted somewhere. try the sitni sati forum.

EricTT
09-09-2008, 07:42 AM
the first thing that pops into my eye is that you have an afterburn render and a fusionworks renderer in the environment tab. afterburn renderer was before version 4. so there might be the problem. check your ysytem fro proper installation. there was the same problem allready posted somewhere. try the sitni sati forum.
Thanks ,I will try.

CapitanRed
09-09-2008, 07:44 AM
ok..I played a bit around with it.
in my experience the explosion deamon renders always slower. but that does not mean you should not use it. just keep it in mind ;)
I don't understand why you aren't using the AB shadowmap.
your noise bias was set to 0.1. I setted it back to 0.5 just out of curiosity, and dadaa...rendered superfast :)

I also tried to uncheck atmospheric shadows in your lights, and that speeded it up again. of course it's against the logic..but in some cases you don't need the spuer detailed shadowing.

oh...btw...I had no crash at all.

nitrocom
09-09-2008, 10:32 AM
I had the same problem. I'm not using AB nowadays actually but wondering if there is still any problem!

Preview window, rendering crashes are all the same. I'm wondering if it has a problem with cpu ram (I mean computer configuration) ?

nitrocom
09-09-2008, 10:33 AM
Ah btw, Those were happening in max 7 :) And got problem in 9 !

EricTT
09-09-2008, 12:15 PM
ok..I played a bit around with it.
in my experience the explosion deamon renders always slower. but that does not mean you should not use it. just keep it in mind ;)
I don't understand why you aren't using the AB shadowmap.
your noise bias was set to 0.1. I setted it back to 0.5 just out of curiosity, and dadaa...rendered superfast :)

I also tried to uncheck atmospheric shadows in your lights, and that speeded it up again. of course it's against the logic..but in some cases you don't need the spuer detailed shadowing.

oh...btw...I had no crash at all.
Thank your tips ,I do that like what you say,I render with fr ,I render test 800*600 everything is ok,faster than scanline,but when I render 1920*1080,a new problem happened!

Veridal
09-29-2008, 12:00 PM
Hey everyone!
I'm having trouble with AB4. I was kinda good with ab3, but then i decided to upgrade it, and the problems came: i tried to create an explosion with an omni light inside, like Allan McKay does in his Adv. Visual Effects dvd, but with ab4 just the inner side of the particles is lightened! Everything else is black. I also noticed that even if i change the color of the particles (with a gradient like mcKay), they just remain b/w.

Anyone can help me?

Thanks:D

Debneyink
09-29-2008, 03:31 PM
i may have mentioned it before a while back but afterburn 4's giving me black dots in my alpha? cant remember why!!.. anyone know how to get rid of them, im ideally rendering in vray but they appear inscanline also

ta

n0mad
09-30-2008, 05:47 AM
Hello Debneyink.

I have the same artifacts with .rpf file format.
With .tga of .tiff all works fine.

videofxuniverse
10-03-2008, 01:02 PM
I posted this question before a while ago but have an update

This is the problem I am getting. If you look closely at the stalk of the blast there are tons of small dots.

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g279/dangerous-dave/nukesmall.jpg

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g279/dangerous-dave/nukebig.jpg

There are 4 seperate afterburn shaders in the scene but its the ones with the octane shader which causes the problem. I use octane quite often and most of the time I do not get this issue, but on few occasions i do and just cant get rid of them. I have been told to put the particle size to 0 (there are about 10 different options for particle size all over the place and turning all of them to 0 ddnt help) someone else said in particle flow turn the shape to vertex and the display to ticks. Again this hasnt worked. Now if it is a case of turning the particles to 0 which setting is it under what parameter? Again im sorry for posting this twice

Debneyink
10-03-2008, 01:12 PM
yep thats the bain of my existence too right now!


does anybody know?
because i sure cant sort it out...

JohnnyRandom
10-03-2008, 04:50 PM
The octane shader that we all know and love has been having the issue since the inception of AB 4.0, all you can do is wait for a fix, or use raymarcher.

When using octane+AB shadow map (or any time you use the AB shadow Map for that matter), make sure that Atmospheric Shadows is unchecked in the light's shadow params rollout, this is not necessary when using the AB shadow map, it will cause artifacting.

Debneyink
10-03-2008, 05:15 PM
nice work thanks

videofxuniverse
10-03-2008, 06:37 PM
yeah i have ab 4. The octane shader is very tempramental. I have used it for a lot of things including volumetric fog and it can work flawlessly but on others i get those really annoying dots and if you say its a bug with version 4 then they really need to bring out a fix

Laird85
10-04-2008, 11:07 AM
removed info ;)

EricTT
10-04-2008, 11:53 AM
yeah i have ab 4. The octane shader is very tempramental. I have used it for a lot of things including volumetric fog and it can work flawlessly but on others i get those really annoying dots and if you say its a bug with version 4 then they really need to bring out a fix
Hi,nice work,I have made a same scene like you I have some question to ask you ,I want to know the smoke on the ground which shader did you use?I uesd a lot of particles to flow the ground ,I try the two AB shader which we used to ,but all of them waste my too much render time ,the scene have three lights ,I use the raytrace shadow ,I use Fr GI to render my scene.Maybe the main reason is the particle number,but if I reduce the number I am afraid I won't have a continuous smoke motion.I want to know how did you do this?

TwiiK
10-04-2008, 12:06 PM
Laird85, I'm sorry to say, but you are wrong in both cases. :) In the other thread it should be painfully obvious that it's not his particles showing seeing as there's only 3 big black dots in the entire effect.

These are render artifacts.

videofxuniverse, I'm getting the exact same artifacts when rendering out that scene in AB 4. I didn't however get them in AB 3.2 so it's safe to say that JohnnyRandom is correct.

Debneyink
10-04-2008, 02:25 PM
not so fast....



ive tried both methods and am getting no results, definatly not the particles thing and have tried jrandoms method but got no joy...ab3.2 it is for me right now...

JohnnyRandom
10-04-2008, 04:03 PM
It is a confirmed bug and has been reported many times to the developer and they are working on a fix.

The solution is to use raymarcher as I said or use 3.2a with octane:)

What I mentioned previously is not a fix but the correct way to use the new AB shadow map (since there has been some confusion about this in the past), it does not however work correctly with the octane shader (it does with raymarcher). The old methodology was to always have the lights atmospheric shadows checked on for use with afterburn. This is no longer the case with the new AB shadowmap. You will notice that if you do happen to check atmospheric shadows on your light artifacting will become quite a bit worse.

videofxuniverse
10-04-2008, 05:10 PM
I used to have ab 3.2 but upgraded to version 4 because of the conflict issue with dreamscape. Can i use both 4 and 3.2 or do i have to uninstal 4 and go back to 3.2

JohnnyRandom
10-04-2008, 05:25 PM
^You'll have to uninstall 4.0 :( Although I haven't tried it since max7 you can try just setting up a second max install in another folder ie 3dsMax7_2, don't know though with these wonderful "smart" installers might not let you, but worth a shot.

I currently have max8 set with 3.2 and a few other legacy plugins, seems to work ok for me.

BTW that's a nice looking setup you have going there :)

Debneyink
10-04-2008, 05:48 PM
gotcha, its all making sense to me now

mhdmhd
10-04-2008, 10:34 PM
I am kind of new to afterburn, I was always afraid of particles effect because of long time rendering but it is not really long time, I really started to like that octane shader, it made my life easier. I will keep learning with it till they make a fix then by that time(hopefuly soon) I will use it in production.

Diependaal
10-05-2008, 07:47 AM
Im starting with a vfx shot, where i make a ww3 scene in my city.
With a nuclear explosions , buildings collapsing etc.

Now im stuck with a thing, the way i should go, for the nuclear explosion afterburn might be good, but it is pretty static, fume fx is more dynamic, but can get thick mushroom like clouds yet.

Does anyone have experience with both, and can tell me how to achieve the best result in both, so i can have a look myself, i havent found optimal settings for both yet, so i dont know the possibilities yet, as good as some of you here maybe have.

Any tips, suggestions, links, all is welcome.

TwiiK
10-05-2008, 08:55 PM
I'm currently making a nuclear explosion in Afterburn using Andy Murdcock's nuke from Lots of Robots as a reference (mainly because I think his nuke looks pretty awesome and he nailed the look of it pretty good).

I can't give you an estimate to when I'll have something to show you, but I think Andy Murdock's LOR volume 2 dvd only costs about $15. It includes, among other things, the nuke with scene files and a small tutorial. It's a great example of what kind of nuke you can achieve with Afterburn.

I, personally, think you would need quite the system to make a convincing nuke in FumeFX. This is because the only difference between the mushroom cloud of a nuke and that of a small scale explosion is the massive sense of scale. To achieve that you would need tons of detail in the mushroom cloud which means incredibly tiny spacing in your simulation. This would in term require a beast of a machine. That's kind of the price to pay for fluid dynamics. :)

Also, I don't think that fluid dynamics is all that important with a nuke. The blast wave, shock wave, bright flash, sound etc. are the most important factors and for those I would use neither fume nor Afterburn, but different tricks in 3ds max and After Effects (or any other 3d package or compositing app you use).

For the mushroom cloud itself Murdock's way of using an animated mesh is perfect. It takes away all randomness of trying to simulate it with space warps etc. and leaves you with perfect control of the shape of it. This goes for both fumeFX and Afterburn.

Then you would stick particles to your mesh and use those with Afterburn. With FumeFX you could use the mesh itself or stick particles to it, I'm not sure what would look best or even work.

A combination of both would probably give the best result, but I haven't got FumeFX, I have only tried it so I'm going all Afterburn. Also I hate render times and when you throw extra long simulation times into the mix FumeFX is not for me. :D

Glacierise
10-05-2008, 09:53 PM
You hate long renders - man is your life gonna be hard with AB now :D Have in mind that Mr. Murdock is a master artist, so not everybody could easily get his results. On the detail problem - yeah that's an issue, but don't forget that you can make a low-res fume sim that can drive AB particles, so you can get best of both worlds. You can also layer FFX grids (I'm doing that in my tut), and, well, there are many approaches, right? Let's make a nuking party, the more - the merrier :D

TwiiK
10-06-2008, 06:58 AM
Using fume to drive AB sounds pretty clever.

However I don't understand what you mean with my life being hard with AB. I've used AB for quite some time now and the thing I love about it is the speed.

But it'll be fun to see what you come up with. If it's anything like your protoss vs wall shot then it'll be awesome. :)

TwiiK
10-08-2008, 12:33 AM
Have in mind that Mr. Murdock is a master artist, so not everybody could easily get his results.

I'm positive Murdock's skills are superior to mine in every aspect of 3d, but when it comes to explosions I should at least be able to get something up his alley. :) I've learned from Pete Draper that research is key to any effect and as I consider myself a nuke nut I have done my fair share of research over the years. :p

Had some time to work on my AB nuke and came to a point where I thought a test render was in order. :)

http://www.twiik.net/files/images/nuketest.thumbnail.jpg (http://www.twiik.net/files/images/nuketest.jpg)

Andy Murdock's way of using a mesh for the shape is brilliant so I adopted that for my own nuke as well. It gives me total control of the shape at every frame in the animation which I find great.

I still need to create a shock wave and some dust (gonna be hard when AB 4 is not letting me use the octane shader), and maybe a proper scene for the thing, but I think it's starting to look pretty good.

I also need to learn some compositing so I can composite the scanline rendered nuke on a MR rendered scene or maybe even some stock footage. As you can tell I tried compositing the nuke ontop of the scene in After Effects, but I got this fringe around the edge which I couldn't remove. :p

Glacierise
10-08-2008, 05:17 AM
Dude, the test looks awesome! Can't wait too see this finished.

JohnnyRandom
10-08-2008, 04:26 PM
That is a tip-top test render, great colors :)

TwiiK
10-08-2008, 08:39 PM
I have a problem regarding particle flow speed. :)

Murdock uses the shape mark operator to lock the particles of his shockwave to the terrain. This method is fairly slow, but it's acceptable. I would use this method myself, however I want the particles in my shockwave to move, both outwards and back towards the center, after they've been spawned and I'm not able to do that with the shape mark.

So I used gravity and collision to lock them to the terrain and a negative spherical wind to suck them back it. It works great, except it is unbelievably slow. It can calculate for close to 30 mins for just a simple test frame.

The effect I'm trying to make involves the shockwave moving outwards kicking up dust as it travels. The dust will at first inherit some of the speed of the shockwave before gradually being sucked back towards the center by the backdraft/updraft created by the nuke itself.

I've heard talk about the lock/bond operator in Box #1 and I'm thinking that is what I need, but is it fast? If it's not faster than my approch I won't bother with it. :)

Also, can you think of any other "fast" ways of creating an effect like this?

Edit
Found the demo of Box #1 and the lock/bond operator is insanely fast at giving me the same effect as the shape mark, but I'm unable to move the particles with wind or similar while they're "locked".

Am I doing something wrong, is it disabled in the demo or just not possible?

TwiiK
10-08-2008, 11:12 PM
http://www.twiik.net/files/images/nuketest2.thumbnail.jpg (http://www.twiik.net/files/images/nuketest2.jpg)

Todays testrender turned out better than expected. A more intimidating angle this time. :)

May do a test animation tomorrow while I'm at work.

Daniel-B
10-09-2008, 02:04 AM
http://www.twiik.net/files/images/nuketest2.thumbnail.jpg (http://www.twiik.net/files/images/nuketest2.jpg)

Todays testrender turned out better than expected. A more intimidating angle this time. :)

May do a test animation tomorrow while I'm at work.


Very nice. Looks really good. How did you do that cloud under the main mushroom? I'm not talking about on the ground, but the one directly under the top mushroom. It looks really good.

TwiiK
10-09-2008, 07:49 AM
It's just a clone of the top one.

The stem of the mushroom is a spline with lathe, displace and some other modifiers. And the top, the bottom and the middle are toruses, with displacements and FFD modifiers.

To put particles on it I use sticky particles that come with Afterburn. To get color I'm using omni lights inside the toruses.

All credit goes to Andy Murdock for this. I wouldn't have thought about doing it this way if it wasn't for his Lots of Robots tutorials. :)

My next step will be the shockwave and quite a bit of tweaking and optimizing of the AB shaders. But first I may go about creating a simple scene.

n0mad
10-13-2008, 05:49 AM
Hello TwiiK,
really good shot.
But plese tell me - Is it the animation, or just a single frame ?
If it is the animation, post here the .avi file (or .mov) just a few frames, please.
It is very interesting for me to see how the animation of the nuke looks like.

thank you TwiiK.

TwiiK
10-13-2008, 10:11 AM
Well of course it's an animation. :)

But work has been taking up all my time lately so I haven't been able to do any more with the nuke. I didn't render out an animation because I was most interested in how the shaders looked.

I'll see if I can set it to render out the animation overnight or while I'm at work so you can see. I'm in the process of moving to 64-bit and as well as a renderfarm so when I have that done I can churn out renders like never before. :D

Diependaal
10-13-2008, 12:44 PM
Has anyone seen an update, or a bug fix, or just some sort of work-around for the bug in the octane shader. I've tried disabling the view of all sorts of elements in max to maybe remove the tiny dots in the render, nothing helped.

Would really like to use the octane shader,
Rendering with hightransparentsee will take hours, and rendering afterburn in layers never gives me a clean look, it than looks like layerd afterburn stuff in the end.

So any tips?

SoLiTuDe
10-13-2008, 01:48 PM
Hello TwiiK,
really good shot.
But plese tell me - Is it the animation, or just a single frame ?
If it is the animation, post here the .avi file (or .mov) just a few frames, please.
It is very interesting for me to see how the animation of the nuke looks like.

thank you TwiiK.

http://lotsofrobots.com/movies/Mushrooms.htm

n0mad
10-14-2008, 05:54 AM
http://lotsofrobots.com/movies/Mushrooms.htm


thanks SoLiTuDe (http://forums.cgsociety.org/member.php?u=24255),
very usefull link

TwiiK
10-14-2008, 11:53 AM
Has anyone seen an update, or a bug fix, or just some sort of work-around for the bug in the octane shader. I've tried disabling the view of all sorts of elements in max to maybe remove the tiny dots in the render, nothing helped.

Would really like to use the octane shader,
Rendering with hightransparentsee will take hours, and rendering afterburn in layers never gives me a clean look, it than looks like layerd afterburn stuff in the end.

So any tips?

I haven't got any tips, but an update to Afterburn 4 with fixed Octane shader as well as a tabbed interface would be most welcome. :)

Afterburn 4 has been out for a long time so this should be fixed by now, and the tabbed interface should have been there a long time ago in my opinion.

All the scrolling is taking it's toll on my hand as well as my mouse.

jimmy4d
10-14-2008, 11:55 AM
Yeah that is a really nice looking nuke dude, i too would like to see an animation. going 64 is a dream of mine also. soon maybe.

TwiiK
10-14-2008, 11:57 AM
Animation is rendering out as we speak.

I have no idea how it will look however as I just set it to render. I haven't got the time to fiddle with it and do test renders at the moment. :)

Maybe this weekend I'll have some more time.

ice-boy
10-14-2008, 02:40 PM
i have afterburn 4.
i am readint this tutorial now.
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cgvisual.com%2Ftuto%2Fsobig%2FCGVtuto_sobig_3dsmax_p1.htm&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=zh-CN&tl=en

but i cant find volume rendering. step 7 .
-step size

JohnnyRandom
10-14-2008, 04:33 PM
i have afterburn 4.
i am readint this tutorial now.
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cgvisual.com%2Ftuto%2Fsobig%2FCGVtuto_sobig_3dsmax_p1.htm&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=zh-CN&tl=en

but i can to find volume rendering. step 7 .
-step size

It is a little different ;)

ice-boy
10-14-2008, 06:23 PM
thanks. i was actually using those settigns like in hte tutorial because it made sense tha tthey cahnged something.

but i got different results like in the tutorial. i guess i am doing something wrong.

my clouds are to much like spheres.how do i make them more blury and 50% opacity?


thanks

n0mad
10-15-2008, 06:05 AM
Hello, ice-boy.


The AB settings is depends of the scene scale. So i suppose your scale settings is differenet from the tutorial file.

Anyway,
the first coming in mind is to decrease the `Noise Size` parameter to "destroy" the sphere-like shells by size of the noise pattern.

Also you can change the `Density` parameter to control the opacity of the volumetric puffs.

The quantity of particle is important too. You do not need many particle to create the clouds.

Don't forget to set up the shadows - it will bring the additional
volume for clouds.

ice-boy
10-15-2008, 09:10 AM
thank you i will try.

TwiiK
10-16-2008, 08:07 AM
I need some help:

Yesterday, after rendering for 48 hours straight, my animation was done. However when I loaded it up in After Effects I could clearly see that starting from frame 461 (of 600) every third frame was borked.

I have 5 sticky particles and 1 particle flow, with 1 afterburn for each in my scene. Every third frame starting from frame 461 the particle flow Afterburn would not render at all. So it would be there in all it's glory frame 462,463, then gone 464, visible again 465,466, gone 467 etc.

This was my first render with a renderfarm and I'm guessing that has something to do with it, but I have no idea what. :)

My renderfarm is at the moment just an old P4 2,5ghz, 1gb ram and an AMD 64 2ghz, 1gb ram. When I'm at work I also start the backburner server app on my workstation which is a 2,4ghz quad core, 2gb ram.

I've looked at the backburner logs and there's no errors related to those frames and all the computers have rendered both good frames and borked frames so I can't blame it all on one computer either.

The render wasn't memory intensive and from what I could see the servers spiked at about 500mb used ram.

Would be awesome if anyone has experienced anything similar or has any idea what's going on. :)

I'm rendering out the 50 or so borked frames again using only my work station at the moment to see how that goes.

TwiiK
10-16-2008, 07:09 PM
Bah, the nuke animation has tons of glitches and the end results wasn't even that good. :)

Posting it anyways for anyone interested:

Straight from max:
http://www.twiik.net/files/videos/nuke_max.mov

Slightly tweaked:
http://www.twiik.net/files/videos/nuke.mov

Normally I wouldn't show anyone something which has flaws I know how to fix and this has plenty, but I have some errors in there I would like some help with.

For instance:

- Like I said, the first time I rendered it 50 or so frames (every third from 461) rendered without 1 of the afterburn systems.
- I rendered those 50 frames again, but apparently they are now out of sync or something with the original footage and look very bad.

I need help in figuring why these two things happened. :)

Also there's a lot of frames in there where some kind of popping occours.

Is all this related to this animation being rendered across 3 computers and is this something I can expect in the future?

Debneyink
10-16-2008, 07:38 PM
its looking good, I'm ignoring the glitches, thats what happens i guess!

the central stem looks great
good work

amckay
10-16-2008, 09:12 PM
hmm what processors are they? and what version of afterburn
there are known bugs if the machine is intel vs amd because it reads teh floating point differently (I believe?) so the seeds are different. If this is the case if you know one box is totally different to the others, you're best off rendering maybe the thick smoke on the two identical boxes and maybe a light dust pass on the other box by itself, distribute them in a manor that there wont be popping because they're not all sharing the same work.

I noticed back in like 2000 that motion drag sometimes if lowered helped stop popping a little bit if stuff ever hovered, but its always a long shot.

Anyway let me know your machine specs that might clarify a few things

TwiiK
10-16-2008, 09:25 PM
You seem to be right on the money, Allan. :)

Server 1: Amd 64 2ghz, 1gb ram
Server 2: P4 2,5ghz, 1gb ram
Work station: Q6600 2,4ghz, 2gb ram

The reason I was itching to figure this out was that my boss has decided to give me a bonus for working my ass off these last weeks, which will either be 3 new servers for my farm or a new work station.

The 3 new servers would be identical and I would throw the old ones out so I guess it's likely I won't have this problem then. :) I will also switch to 64-bit OS at that time if that makes any difference.

I would choose the work station if network rendering proved too much of a hassle, but I guess I'll take my chances. :p

Edit:

Duh, my Afterburn version is 4.0.

amckay
10-16-2008, 10:40 PM
personally I would go render equipment. the more boxes you have, the less time you're waiting to see rendered results, you can submit stuff to the farm, try different things and not have to wait over night to see the results.
I had 10 node render farm for myself at home at one point, it meant I was able to try different things and get complex changes turned around very quickly, rather than "geez another coffee break" scenario every 20 mins

personally I'd ask for a few months off vacation as a bonus, go to jamaica and get drunk for a few weeks, that would be a nice bonus : )

dreggsy
10-21-2008, 12:21 AM
G'day all,
I have just built up a new Quad Core machine but when i render out anything which has Pflow and AB, I end up getting jerky frames it's like there's camera shake going on.

any ideas on whats happening?

also has some body got some kind of test file for a speed rendering test i can use?

cheers
thanks in advance

SoLiTuDe
10-21-2008, 12:23 AM
G'day all,
I end up getting jerky frames it's like there's camera shake going on.

any ideas on whats happening?

cheers
thanks in advance


Usually a licensing error. I'd reinstall, reauthorize, and if you still have problems contact turbosquid.

dreggsy
10-21-2008, 12:37 AM
Odd.
As it didn't happen on my old P4,
I thought it could be a multiproc eror or something.

dreggsy
10-21-2008, 12:43 AM
Odd.
As it didn't happen on my old P4,
I thought it could be a multiproc eror or something.

amckay
10-21-2008, 06:34 PM
are you getting jerky frames on just that machine or are you actually net rendering?
if its on that machine - are you using ab 3? like 3.2c ? I know one of the versions of AB has some bugs that cause that, I've never seen it in 4.0.
try adjusting the motion drag in ab down to like .5 or something. I know I had this issue like back in 1999/2000 where it was jumping around (in like ab1) and out of desperation I adjusted the motion drag value and it seemed to help a bit.
but as a sure thing, I would make sure you have the latest version of AB


nice on the quad core, I just got a dual quad core/8gb ram - which works wonders for fume fx!

jussing
10-22-2008, 07:32 AM
This is a photo from the India moon mission launch:

http://politiken.dk/archive/00292/India_Moon_Mission_292478c.jpg

I mean... Gosh... look at that pillar of smoke. If it was posted here as 3D, I'd say it needed a lot more work.

What is it with moon missions and fake images?? :)

- Jonas

TwiiK
10-22-2008, 07:40 AM
You did choose the worst one of the bunch after all. :)

You haven't touched it at all? It does look exceptionally fake compared to the other images I've seen from the launch. :p

Here's the one used in my local papers: http://pub.tv2.no/multimedia/na/archive/00655/444__Chandrayaan-1__655896p.jpg

Glacierise
10-22-2008, 07:58 AM
Yeah I've noticed that too. Lots of photos, if they were 3D art, would be not too good 3D art :D Or is AB just better then we think?! :D

jimmy4d
10-22-2008, 11:18 AM
nice on the quad core, I just got a dual quad core/8gb ram - which works wonders for fume fx!



AAAHHHH......I hate you. Not really but man I gotta building a new machine in 09 and thats what I want. Fume demands it.

dreggsy
10-22-2008, 10:39 PM
are you getting jerky frames on just that machine or are you actually net rendering?

try adjusting the motion drag in ab down to like .5 or something.

nice on the quad core, I just got a dual quad core/8gb ram - which works wonders for fume fx!

G'day mate,

It's on the one machine, i did a reinstall and the scene seems to render fine, :)
I'll have a play with that next time i get a chance.
The Quad core has made a huge difference, stuff that was taking 10mins to do is happening at under 1 minute now,
which now means I can add more and more and more.

I'm jealous, a dual quadcore :) that must have cost a heap
I got a quote from our tech guy here and it was very very pricey
what did yours cost for MB and Chips alone?

Cheers
Back to the kitchen, I smell something burning.

TwiiK
10-22-2008, 11:05 PM
I was considering a dual quad myself, but ended up going for a small farm instead.

The setup I was looking at was a dual quad xeon, 8gb Dell preciscion work station. And the price was "only" about $2000, including a quadro something something, 64-bit vista etc. etc.. Not horribly pricey, but considering that the x58 chipset and intel Core i7 cpu's are fast approching I'm not going to upgrade my work station at the moment.

Daniel-B
10-23-2008, 11:08 AM
What is the most realistic shader to use in AB? I've heard someone say it was Rayleigh scattering because of how atmospherics in real life scatter light. Does anyone know?

amckay
10-23-2008, 08:22 PM
they're all the same they just treat scattering differently
I dont have AB with me, but basically releigh scatters nicely, uhh the one on the left is a bit more kind of additive, and essentially light just reacts a bit differently, its not really which is better or more real, but how the light reacts inside of the volume itself.

TwiiK
10-25-2008, 10:55 AM
I need some help. :)

I want to composite my Afterburn explosion in After Effects, but no matter how I try to render it out of 3ds max and put it back togheter in AFX it ends up looking nothing like what I had in 3ds max.

Here's the effect in 3ds max:
http://www.twiik.net/files/images/help1.thumbnail.jpg (http://www.twiik.net/files/images/help1.jpg)

My scene is 1 light with shadow and 2 fill lights without shadows, 1 background image set as the enviroment and a ground plane with a matte shadow (apply atmosphere at object depth, recieve shadows), 1 afterburn effect and a particle system.

I am able to composite properly if I render it out in multiple renders with shadows turned off, with shadows on, with background on etc, but I want to be able to do it in one go using the render elements.

Only I don't understand how they work. :p I tried lighting, shadows, diffuse, atmospherics and a couple more. Even when I told the diffuse not to have lighting it still had shadows, when I told the lighting not to have shadows it still had shadows.

What I want is the effect by itself so I can apply glows etc., the shadow by itself so I can soften it, reduce the opacity etc.. And that's pretty much it, yet I am unable to do it with the render elements.

Are there any tutorials out there on compositing in AFX from 3ds max or on compositing volumetric effects? Or can anyone here give me some pointers?

Also, I have another problem with this same effect. It's very visible in the alpha here:
http://www.twiik.net/files/images/help2.thumbnail.jpg (http://www.twiik.net/files/images/help2.jpg)

It looks almost like someone's been eating chucks out of my explosion. It's not very visible in the animation so I'm not very bothered with it, but I have no idea what it is.

Edit:

One more thing. I have an omni lighting the ground in the initial explosion, but that doesn't show up in the matte/shadow. How do I get my light from 3ds max to AFX so I can apply it to a background image in AFX?

Thanks.

TwiiK
10-25-2008, 02:08 PM
Here's a quick animation test of the explosion.
http://www.twiik.net/files/videos/explosion.mov

I see right away that the particles need less gravity and that the afterburn shaders needs some tweaking, but overall it's not that bad. :)

Also, for some weird reason if I turn down the density of my afterburn effect the density of the shadows increase. This is the sort of thing I can fix when I'm able to composite the effect properly. For this test it's just effect rendered on a matte/shadow then put ontop of a background image.

Daniel-B
10-25-2008, 10:15 PM
Are you using a good step size on your shader and shadows? I try to use at least a step size of 1.0, but something like 0.7 is even better.

I don't know if this is your problem, but it's something to look at.

TwiiK
10-25-2008, 11:09 PM
The step size is 0,5 for the shader and 0,3 for the shadows I think.

But it renders extremely quick compared to other effects I've done with Afterburn with such a low step size, and it looks a little rough as well. Not sure what's going on. :p

I don't think it's the step size though. I usually increase the step size to 2-3 or even 4+ depending on the distance from camera and type of effect I want, and I haven't seen this before.

depleteD
10-26-2008, 11:29 PM
Hey guys, I posted a tutorial on getting tp data to drive AB curves using TP 3 and Afterburn 4.

Hey twiik that is a really cool animation you got going their man. I think it fades out a lil too quick. But I dig what your doing here man.

Hopefully I understand your question, when I need to comp multiple atmospheric mattes together I kind of fake it. I render them with a red and green light. Red = key, green = fill, and then use a channel Boolean set to maximum. Then I pull keys and then relight my atmospherics in the comp.

fiftypercent
10-27-2008, 02:35 AM
Can somebody please tell me how you can do a nightcrawler "bamf" smoke effect with afterburn... because i just cant do it.... SOMEONE PLEASE HELP!!!

TwiiK
10-27-2008, 08:01 AM
The red, green "trick" sounds really clever and I've seen it done a lot of places so I may test it out myself.

The smoke dissipates quickly because I wanted to fit it in my 150 frames of animation. :) It'll look a lot better the next time I post it.

depleteD
10-27-2008, 05:54 PM
fiftypercent- wanna give us some refrence?

TwiiK- cool dude, looking forward to it

TwiiK
10-27-2008, 06:36 PM
I think he's talking about the effect when Nightcrawler teleports around in this scene:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBrdR5CemlY

I'm not sure I would use Afterburn for this. It looks very "fluidy" and I would consider fumefx for this or just do it with lot's of particles(krakatoa?) and space warps.

JohnnyRandom
10-27-2008, 06:49 PM
^ I'd use both FumeFX, Pflow or TP, AND Krakatoa for that, personally :D


Nice explosion Twiik ;) the first thing that caught me off was the debris bouncing and the dissipation of the smoke, the initial blast looks really nice!