Pyrocluster Is Garbage

[kraal]

what do you consider impresssive?????
http://www.maxon.de/index_e.html
have you looked at any of the samples file that came with the package? have you worked throught the tutorials? what exactly do you want it to do? for what it is it works great for me.

[isome]

i dig it...the only thing better i've worked w/is maya's particle system...lightwave and max aren't my cup of tea (their particles, at any rate).

pyrocluster is nice. flexible, pretty. yup, i dig pyrocluster.

[JIII]

the grass is always greener on the other side dude

[Per-Anders]

i have ot agree, pyrocluster stinks as a voxel shader system :(

hypervoxels is better to a factor of ten, and i should say that pyrocluster and hypervoxels are not particle systems, they're volumetric 3d pixel rendering systems (hence voxel), hypervoxels for instance can be used on any objects normal.

pyrocluster can't to liquids (unless we're talking lava), bubbles, etc, it's got no blending (i.e. two voxels clsoe to each other do not blend into a larger mass if youw anted them to, instead each voxel remains as seperate as different bits of geometry, so it's not much good at doing good smoke effects unless you use millions of the bugger,s in qhich case you may as well have use spries or just used the shatter eformer on a highly subdivided shape.

pyromuster :thumbsdow bleah

[anobrin]

Well as one who owns Lightwave 7.5 as well as C4DXL7.3 i must concur that lightwave volumetric shader system puts pyrocluster to shame but this animtion is fairly decent

http://www.maxon-computer.com/pages/products/c4d/pyrocluster/pics/pyro_snow.mov

[AdamT]

I think it's not inconsistent to say that hypervoxels is better but that Pyrocluster doesn't suck.

[kraal]

yeah to say pyroclusters sux and compaire it to a systems that does more makes no since. pyroclustes is good for what it does and that is it. if you need a different effect or different package the that is what you need to buy. pyrocluster is not hypervoxels (or whatever) sorry for responding like this but after awhile this type of posting gets old ...a better post would be i wish pyrocluster had this or that..to just say something sux then my responce is dont buy it....if you want advise on how to do an effect the by all means ask.....if you have a formal review of the product then by all means post it....however just saying pyroclusters sux is just like me saying my refriderator sux cause it doesnt make toast

[Per-Anders]

but pyrocluster is billed as cinemas hypervoxels, that's the problem, you see it *is* meant to do what hypervoxels does, but it doesn't. hypervoxels is older, and it was better than any version of pyrocluster has been from the beginning both at doing the same thing, and then at being able to do so much more.

many of us did not choose to buy pyrocluster, it comes with the package, it's currently the *only* option for cinema users who need voxel rendering. of course we could all go and take your advice and buy lightwave or maya for hypervoxels or fluids, though that would be a bit excessive for one tool.

pyrocluster has many problems, it's interface the preview system, it's abilities are all sub par when compared to like products on the market elsewhere, that pretty much defines why pyrocluster sucks.

i just wish that someone else would write a decent volumetric system for cinema.

[MJV]

Originally posted by mdme_sadie
i have ot agree, pyrocluster stinks as a voxel shader system :(

hypervoxels is better to a factor of ten, and i should say that pyrocluster and hypervoxels are not particle systems, they're volumetric 3d pixel rendering systems (hence voxel), hypervoxels for instance can be used on any objects normal.

pyrocluster can't to liquids (unless we're talking lava), bubbles, etc, it's got no blending (i.e. two voxels clsoe to each other do not blend into a larger mass if youw anted them to, instead each voxel remains as seperate as different bits of geometry, so it's not much good at doing good smoke

Just started working with PC, but have to agree it seems pretty limited.

[magicpatrick]

Can someone point me some tutorials. I can`t get it work.

thanks

[neods]

Blending would be great, yes. There is no way to create fluids in cinema exept with Metaballs but you cant get real results with that.

So i totally hope that maxon will improve pyrocluster in the near future.

[kiwi]

Check your Pyro folder for the C4D files magicpatrick and then do some reverse engineering :)



When I bought the XL bundle I got an extra copy of Pyro,so I gave the original to a friend and we just changed over the old licence.


Maybe it will get a really good revamp soon as its now a module :)



I agree it leaves a bit to be desired.


Stu.

[LucentDreams]

Originally posted by neods
Blending would be great, yes. There is no way to create fluids in cinema exept with Metaballs but you cant get real results with that.

So i totally hope that maxon will improve pyrocluster in the near future.

for fluids try out Nextlimits flowtreacer seems to do a decent job and renders fast

As for maxon upgrading PC soon, I think that should be on e of the last things on their burners, I'd rather seen R9 then PC 3. I mean I stil don't get the whole Voxels thing anyways, I'm not sure just how much faster lightwaves are, and while I have seen some great renders from both, seems to me for most effects smart sptieplanes are equally as good. Look at Balrog, prime example of good spriteplanes.

[Thalaxis]

Originally posted by mdme_sadie
i have ot agree, pyrocluster stinks as a voxel shader system :(


No, it doesn't, even though...


hypervoxels is better to a factor of ten, and i should say that pyrocluster and hypervoxels are not particle systems, they're volumetric 3d pixel rendering systems (hence voxel), hypervoxels for instance can be used on any objects normal.


... is true.


pyrocluster can't to liquids (unless we're talking lava), bubbles, etc, it's got no blending (i.e. two voxels clsoe to each other do not blend into a larger mass if youw anted them to, instead each voxel remains as seperate as different bits of geometry, so it's not much good at doing good smoke effects unless you use millions of the bugger,s in qhich case you may as well have use spries or just used the shatter eformer on a highly subdivided shape.


The lack of "metaball behavior" in PyroCluster is a definitely limitation.

What makes HyperVoxels so vastly superior as compared to PyroCluster is the fact that it gives the user the full LightWave surfacing system... while PyroCluster seems like it's basically hacked on with its own rather limited surfacing toolset, though I have to say that their gradient system is pretty powerful. It's just not open enough for things like water; for that if you can't afford FlowTracer (which is included with RealWave and RealFlow), your best bet in Cinema is metaballs + volume shaders, which is also problematic since Cinema's volumetric procedurals are even more limiting than their regular procedurals presently.

[Kotayus]

well...it might be limiting in a photorealism sense....but i think PC is a great tool...i mean, to simulate what PC does, i was using volumetric omni lights in a emitter...it took FOREVER to render...it made a fuzzy particle stream and it was nice but PC beats it. It all depends on what your goal is, simulating fluid, ok...perhaps not, creating mist or something similar...perhaps not, but not all 3d modelors are photorealistic either, myself...i use c4d for abstract art, and that works for me...i think its a better particle system than using spheres and lights.

Just some abstract particles...(with almost no modification, just noise mods)

and for abstract it works great for me, so its all in the eye of the beholder.

[bjotto]

well...it might be limiting in a photorealism sense....but i think PC is a great tool...i mean, to simulate what PC does, i was using volumetric omni lights in a emitter...it took FOREVER to render...it made a fuzzy particle stream and it was nice but PC beats it. It all depends on what your goal is, simulating fluid, ok...perhaps not, creating mist or something similar...perhaps not, but not all 3d modelors are photorealistic either, myself...i use c4d for abstract art, and that works for me...i think its a better particle system than using spheres and lights.

pc is the best you can get in cinema, it's much better for volumetric stuff than lights 'cause that's what it's designed for but there are other systems out there that are much better, lightwaves hypervoxels does every thing pc does but better.

[harveyc]

HEY!!


If you don't like it don't use it very simple really

[kiwi]

Originally posted by Kaiskai


As for maxon upgrading PC soon, I think that should be on e of the last things on their burners, I'd rather seen R9 then PC 3 .



Ya I agree I would rather see R9 as well,but some movement on all fronts would be nice.



Stu.

[LucentDreams]

yeah and if they had twice as many programmers maybe they could. few steps at a time guys its a fact of life.

[JoelOtron]

This ones kinda corny--and not really cool airplane exhaust, fire etc, but shows an example of practical use. I used PC extensively on a project last summer. This shows just a few clips in which PC was used. I'll try to find sme others I did.

PC isnt that bad once you get a handle on the settings.



http://www.joeldubin.net/assets/movies/boc_montage.mov

[MJV]

Originally posted by MJV
Just started working with PC, but have to agree it seems pretty limited.

On further examination, I have to take that back. Looks like I has a lot of what I wanted after all.

[kiwi]

Actually I just remember seeing a PYRO competition some time back where a guy did a world war 2 dog fight,that was quite impressive,I had forgotten about that.



Stu.

[flingster]

garbage...dunno about that. horses for courses...
i think people are saying hypervoxels is better basically and cinema could get that rather than pc...i understand better voxels was a request for r9.
r8 is only just out and we all want r9....i feel sorry for those programmers....my personal view is if maxon developed it..i would be better...but now they integrated someone elses product they feel well thats been done so we can concentrate our efforts elsewhere...

[Thalaxis]

It sounds like a lot of people are not cognizant of the fact that PyroCluster isn't actually a "part" of R8, but rather a module; it's a Cebas-developed piece of software that Maxon integrated into R8 as an optional add-on.

That means that an update is more likely to follow Cebas' schedule than Maxon's unless Maxon decides to embark on their own volumetric engine.

So maybe when Cebas gets around to putting the finishing touches on finalRenderT Stage-1, they'll start working on their other stuff for a bit before starting work on Stage-2. :)

[JoelOtron]

I was going to say the same thing Thalaxis.

Pyro was a plugin that has actually been available for C4d for a number of years. It was just made "native" to C4d with R8, but it is exacrty the same, in terms of features and functionality, as the previously available Pyrocluster 2. And the only difference between PC 1 and PC2 was that PC 2 added the Videopost option, which in my opinion, though fast, is not very useful in terms of results.

I'm not familiar with Hypervoxels. All I know is PC can do volumetric particle effects and very well IMO. You just need to be prepared for long render times when it comes to volumetrics--and thats pretty much the way it is no matter what app you use.

Take a look at the examples folder in the module folder installed on your hard drive. There are some very nice examples of what can be done.

[Thalaxis]

Originally posted by JoelD
I'm not familiar with Hypervoxels.

If people hadn't seen HyperVoxels3, we probably would not be so harsh about PyroCluster.

HV3 for one thing uses the same surface editor as everything else in LightWave... so it's easier to texture, it gives you every option available, like things like specularity and refraction.

It also has an advantage in flexibility; you can model up a point cloud (make a shape, select the polys, and "k") and apply HV3 to the points directly, resulting in an easy way to model clouds.

HV's can behave like metaballs, blobbing together and that sort of thing.

You can even apply them to nulls.

They have a sprite mode which is nice and quick, good for pre-viz.

HyperVoxels rock! :applause:

[darf]

I agree with this. The point is that PyroCluster is only for limited pyroclastic effects ( they tried to add some other functions and color gradients but they really don't look that great ). The tool can be exploited a little bit by good artists ( Lonnie Bailey for example did an excellent job of using it for grass and moss and Janine Pauke had some cool stuff ). The problem is that it is not a full featured volume raymarcher or voxel tracer ( or whatever the buzzword is now ) such as HV3. HV3 uses the material system to allow shader functions to define the functions to be traced. PC does not. PC has some built in functions with some ability to tweak them. It does not support material channels as density functions, point clouds, NULL objects or primitives ( I consider this to be very disappointing ). It really has not progressed as the technology has IMHO.

David Farmer

Originally posted by Thalaxis
If people hadn't seen HyperVoxels3, we probably would not be so harsh about PyroCluster.

HV3 for one thing uses the same surface editor as everything else in LightWave... so it's easier to texture, it gives you every option available, like things like specularity and refraction.

It also has an advantage in flexibility; you can model up a point cloud (make a shape, select the polys, and "k") and apply HV3 to the points directly, resulting in an easy way to model clouds.

HV's can behave like metaballs, blobbing together and that sort of thing.

You can even apply them to nulls.

They have a sprite mode which is nice and quick, good for pre-viz.

HyperVoxels rock! :applause:

[flingster]

yeah he's alive....cool.
i bet you could come up with something rather funky....pity its no more....please come back to the "darkside" of C4d development...cos your stuff was yummy!!

[MJV]

Perhaps this is what Per Anders was getting on about, but I can't see any way to make pyrocluser gradients and settings change based upon a particle's distance from other particles? Does anyone know if this is possible? If not then yes, that would be a bit disappointing to me.

[CGTalk Moderation]

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.