PDA

View Full Version : FumeFX


Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

JonathanFreisler
02-23-2010, 02:43 AM
yeah very nice dude, I like it all EXCEPT the lens flairs in the second clip. They ruin it for me and I cant seem to look past them.

Nice work though

Daniel-B
02-23-2010, 04:02 AM
PsycoSilence, I do not have any info on the explosions themselves, because Cryptite did the Fume work on these shots. I simply did the planes/matte painting and composited them. Next time I talk to him, I'll see if he can come in here and explain what he did.

Jonathan, yeah, in retrospect, I did go overboard with those flares. I should have done something more like the flares in the first shot, which look more organic and natural.

JonathanFreisler
02-23-2010, 04:22 AM
Looks cool besides them, they look like there out of startreak ha ha

Cryptite
02-23-2010, 11:20 PM
Hey guys, been awhile since I've posted in my own thread, heh. I need to update the main thread sometime!

For those explosions, all I used were a variety of simple sources (anywhere from 4-8 per fume grid) that had varying heights/widths/shapes (cylinder, box, sphere) coupled with some animated noise to make the source wiggle during the beginning of the sim. That was I was able to sort of fake the different areas of the bomb exploding outward, rather than having them all be one big blob. The grid size was fairly detailed, but other than that, nothing that groundbreaking (like that multi-grid idea for long sims). Turned out well enough, though.

Bandu
02-23-2010, 11:31 PM
yea, the glowing on the explosion's begin is kind of wired, think is too long and ends too rapidly after that long time being so bright.
The explosions are very nice, cool !!!

keichan102
02-25-2010, 03:29 AM
Yes, I saw link below your post in English. I thought I would mention, as Hristo might had missed and asked you question.


@Jignesh I see. I was little bit confused :-)


@Jeff

こんにちは! Haha, it's surprising to see Japanese greeting in CGTalk. Are you working in Japan?PolygonPictures or somewhere? Anyway,thank you for your impression about my blog. And I update my blog today.

http://sky-high-nest.sblo.jp/article/35559629.html

I'm trying super heavy smoke sim. :-)

Zack Attack
03-03-2010, 01:02 AM
So what is actually the correct fix for this disappearing UI interface when you start up fumefx for xp users. I here it has to do with the font??im not sure the solutions i have seen on this thread is way to vague for me to understand. I am a maya fluids user and I am trying to get in to fume fx and so far I find it really counter productive that one of there most important settings are inaccessible. If any one knows like the correct fix for this that would be great.

andybyrne462
03-03-2010, 01:21 AM
So what is actually the correct fix for this disappearing UI interface when you start up fumefx for xp users. I here it has to do with the font??im not sure the solutions i have seen on this thread is way to vague for me to understand. I am a maya fluids user and I am trying to get in to fume fx and so far I find it really counter productive that one of there most important settings are inaccessible. If any one knows like the correct fix for this that would be great.


If you using two monitors it's probably stuck between them. Hotkey move it...

Zack Attack
03-03-2010, 02:45 AM
If you using two monitors it's probably stuck between them. Hotkey move it... I am which would i guess lead me to my next question . is there a standered key board short cut to open the fumefx UI. or do I have to make it. If so in the cunstomize user interface how do i go about doing that. Sorry if this might seem basic to u but as a maya user this is really tricky.

kogden
03-03-2010, 02:51 AM
To pull the UI up its "ctrl + Shift + F"

And to run a sim is "ctrl + Shift + s"

:)

adom86
03-03-2010, 12:02 PM
Hey all

This may be a silly question and there may be very simple solution!

I have 1 container set up for an initial meteor strike (at close range) and then another container set up for the ground explosion and then a last one as a little shockwave.

My question is... is it possible to have, for example, the ground explosion container illuminate the other two. I currently have illumination but they dont effect each other equally and you have to try guess with the settings. I got a little video below showing what I mean... apologies it is a bit dark!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DytNeE1OYj4

Thank you!

JonathanFreisler
03-03-2010, 12:13 PM
Well fume cant receive GI, I'm not sure if thats whats your talking about, but you cant have one sim, illuminate another.

Looks like you dont have any lights in the scene either

adom86
03-03-2010, 12:22 PM
Well fume cant receive GI, I'm not sure if thats whats your talking about, but you cant have one sim, illuminate another.

Looks like you dont have any lights in the scene either

Yea I meant fume receiving GI. There is a light in the scene usign vray shadow but Need to up the smoke strength (in the illumination tab) as it is a bit dull but I was trying to match the colour to the 'meteor' plume using fume but obviously that is very dark.

Im guessing I will have to try fake the GI a bit better.

Oh and it definately needs speeding up, far too slow for a meteor impact. Didn't actually notice until after I had rendered it :)

Cheers though!

JonathanFreisler
03-03-2010, 12:36 PM
Try playing with the flags on your smoke gradient colour.

Also, Vray lights will cast fume to fume shadows, but not object to fume. I'm guessing you don't need objects to be casting shadow on the fume, but just so you know.

There is an 'ambient' colour that you can use to play around with the shadow colour, try enabling scattering. The smoke just looks pure black is all.

adom86
03-03-2010, 12:50 PM
Try playing with the flags on your smoke gradient colour.

Also, Vray lights will cast fume to fume shadows, but not object to fume. I'm guessing you don't need objects to be casting shadow on the fume, but just so you know.

There is an 'ambient' colour that you can use to play around with the shadow colour, try enabling scattering. The smoke just looks pure black is all.

Thanks for the tips, I shall have a look at the ambient and the smoke flags. Never really bothered with them apart from in Afterburn a bit. Shall see how it goes!

Darknon
03-03-2010, 01:14 PM
adom86 (http://forums.cgsociety.org/member.php?u=410788): hey adam. Nice simulation. It's all a bit dark though, you might want to put a light in there with shadows, to make the smoke look better. I would tone the shockwave down a little, and ad some debris and camera shake to it, but I'm sure you already know that :)


Tell me, how did you make the main impact? particles or just simple sources? Maybe you could tell a little about that? :)

adom86
03-03-2010, 03:29 PM
adom86 (http://forums.cgsociety.org/member.php?u=410788): hey adam. Nice simulation. It's all a bit dark though, you might want to put a light in there with shadows, to make the smoke look better. I would tone the shockwave down a little, and ad some debris and camera shake to it, but I'm sure you already know that :)


Tell me, how did you make the main impact? particles or just simple sources? Maybe you could tell a little about that? :)

Hey :)

Max is busy rendering a new version at the moment with a bigger plume, faster impact (as previous is far too slow) but a smaller shockwave like you have mentioned.

I initially did the main impact with afterburn but found it to be very rigid for what I wanted therefore I switched to fumeFX and its just an animated simple source coming in from an angle. The fuel and smoke animate to die off just after impact which is then handed over to the ground plume which again is just 2 simple sources with more directional projection but a large expansion of 6 for 2 frames.

The shockwave is controlled using Pflow and the newer version is a lot faster, but im afraid I may have started it a frame too early! Shall see anyway as it is currently rendering the new one. I have added a few particles to the scene aswell, not may tho!

One thing that I am absolutely awful at doing is compositing fumeFX onto real life footage. Is there a prefered work flow that you know of or have any pointers as I have been using After Effects and trying to colour correct, but I am pretty awful at it so far! (I am ok at motion tracking footage to get the camera data, but it ends there :P )

I shall post the new version when its done, about 2 hours left on it just for 75 frames!

*EDIT* heres the newer version. Shockwave is slightly out of time and a bit heavy on the dissapation. Do you think the initial impact is too fast, to me I would say yes!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZsMPem-I88

Adam

adom86
03-03-2010, 05:41 PM
Apologies, It is the wrong link and it won't let me edit the post anymore!

Here it is:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdVvOX5QElc

Cheers

Darknon
03-04-2010, 11:03 AM
Hey.. The shockwave is perfect if you ask me. I think the main impact is off. It's like the fire/explosion is lasting too long, and dies too fast. It's like a big ball that hangs and then dies way too fast, it needs to transfer better from fire to smoke I think. Or maybe the explosion should just be a very quick flash that turns in to smoke very quickly. Does this make any sense at all? the fire is defienatly too much. The smoke afterwards is great.

oh, and your meteor trail is very dark, and doesn't seem to recieve light or something, or else it's just a very dark trail :)

camera shake on impact will add alot.

I did this one some time ago. It has camera shake, and it works :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3WsBDWXf9k

Keep posing :)

adom86
03-04-2010, 11:54 PM
Thanks for the tip's I shall look into them :) Awesome little explosion u did there nice detail :)

I have just tried using render elements for compositing for the first time and my test shot using vray and just a simple teapot along with After Effects went rather well! I am just wondering if the same applies to FumeFX.

With having multiple containers I wud assume you would have to render each bit like fire and smoke as seperate shots each with their own group of render passes in order to have full control in compositing?

I am currently rendering the diffuse filter, shadows, GI, reflection and specular at the moment. Probably dont need the specular or reflection. These are being saved as an EXR file so it saves all passes in one file.

Im gonna give one frame ago to see if the same rules apply to fume :P

*edit*
I soon noticed that diffuse doesnt work and then slapped my self as it would be an atmospheric.. anyway rendered every pass on the list to see what does what. Atmospheric appears to be almost similar to the beauty shot and then there is a lighting and shadow pass that seem to work. GI pass appeared to show nothing at all, wonder it its coming out with the light pass?

Anyway its late, up in 5 hours to go film the footage for a project to put this shot into!

Darknon
03-05-2010, 08:46 AM
Yeah, I've worked with alot of passes in my time, but to be frank, I try to advoid using passes at anytime. I try to make one beauty render from max, and then just tweek kontrask and color and stuff in post. Passes just gives me headache, especially when it comes to render atmospheric effects like fume or afterburn, because of shadowing and shit. I makes sense if you're rendering a car commercial or something like that. But with atmospheric scenes I find it more relaxing to just get as good a result as I can i max, and not rely on fixing everything in post. And you can really get some nice renders from max if you take the time :)

I used to render alot with Vray. But when I started on more advanced fumefx stuff, Vray was giving me alot of problems, so I switched to scanline, and it works alright for those dark night scenes I'm doing.

If shadows needs to be darker, or the color needs to be more red, I would always fix it in max and render again.

Mills
03-05-2010, 02:25 PM
I am trying to make big smoke i know this has been discussed here but i just cant seem to get it. If any1 can give me some pointers it would be much appreciated. This is what i have :(

http://www.500mills.com/test.mov

This is what i am trying to get at
http://vimeo.com/8035784
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPpfp0MfrSU
Thanks
http://www.500mills.com/settings.jpg

adom86
03-05-2010, 03:25 PM
I am trying to make big smoke i know this has been discussed here but i just cant seem to get it. If any1 can give me some pointers it would be much appreciated. This is what i have :(

http://www.500mills.com/test.mov

This is what i am trying to get at
http://vimeo.com/8035784
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPpfp0MfrSU
Thanks


Hey

I would try lowering the turbulence noise scale in the simulation tab. You will then start to see more whispy like smoke that looks more defined :) try it at 6 or something, depends how fine you would like it also add a little bit of x turbulence to make it a bit more random :)

Adam

blackout0826
03-05-2010, 04:11 PM
Hey,

Besides what Adam86 said, I think you need to lower time scale.

Mills
03-05-2010, 04:35 PM
ok awesome i will do that. I suppose a gradient in the smoke color.
What would u guys suggest for the dissipation min dense and dissipation strength. To get the smoke to "blur" out over time.
Its hard to see in the preview window on low sim settings. :banghead: I think the best way to see what s going on.
Thanks!!
E

FabianB
03-05-2010, 05:02 PM
Hey Mills,
I made this two tests and also the one you already posted. The one you posted was my first try actually:

http://vimeo.com/8091482
http://vimeo.com/8144503

I'm emitting from a simple src with a noise in temp and fuel and a particle system with the fumefollow operator. Now the main trick is to get this pyrocloud-look is to get a lot of diffent temperatures in your grid! There are many ways to do this, I'm using an AFC on the particles with velocity to temperature with a high random value. Also a HIGH timescale helps! I'm not using any turbulence!

Hope that helps,
Fabian

JohnnyRandom
03-06-2010, 12:49 AM
:beer:...........................

jimmy4d
03-06-2010, 03:54 PM
Yeah, I've worked with alot of passes in my time, but to be frank, I try to advoid using passes at anytime. I try to make one beauty render from max, and then just tweek kontrask and color and stuff in post. Passes just gives me headache, especially when it comes to render atmospheric effects like fume or afterburn, because of shadowing and shit. I makes sense if you're rendering a car commercial or something like that. But with atmospheric scenes I find it more relaxing to just get as good a result as I can i max, and not rely on fixing everything in post. And you can really get some nice renders from max if you take the time :)

I used to render alot with Vray. But when I started on more advanced fumefx stuff, Vray was giving me alot of problems, so I switched to scanline, and it works alright for those dark night scenes I'm doing.

If shadows needs to be darker, or the color needs to be more red, I would always fix it in max and render again.


OHH man do I agree with this, I thought I was the only one that hated passes with fume and stuff, sometimes it's ok but I get the same w/out passes. I too like to get it right in max, as best I can anyhow.:)

Dreamie
03-06-2010, 06:30 PM
That's looking great! So I understand the particles are just moving sideways?

Hey Mills,
I made this two tests and also the one you already posted. The one you posted was my first try actually:

http://vimeo.com/8091482
http://vimeo.com/8144503

I'm emitting from a simple src with a noise in temp and fuel and a particle system with the fumefollow operator. Now the main trick is to get this pyrocloud-look is to get a lot of diffent temperatures in your grid! There are many ways to do this, I'm using an AFC on the particles with velocity to temperature with a high random value. Also a HIGH timescale helps! I'm not using any turbulence!

Hope that helps,
Fabian

Dreamie
03-06-2010, 06:34 PM
OHH man do I agree with this, I thought I was the only one that hated passes with fume and stuff, sometimes it's ok but I get the same w/out passes. I too like to get it right in max, as best I can anyhow.:)
I can relate to that, but basically this approach can work if you do your private works.. ..Unfortunately in real life pipeline you can't just tell them why you hate passes so much. :-)
That depends on the scale of the project of course..

Did you both try finalRender with fumeFX ? I had easier results with it than with Vray..

FabianB
03-06-2010, 09:06 PM
That's looking great! So I understand the particles are just moving sideways?

I'm using a gravity vector for moving it sideways, the particles follow the sim.
The main key is the temperature, here is a picture of the temp channel.

http://vfx-training.com/training/temp.JPG

adom86
03-06-2010, 10:37 PM
Did you both try finalRender with fumeFX ? I had easier results with it than with Vray..

Hey Dreamie!

I have never tried FinalRender maybe one day I shall! Anyway, I am looking into ways for compositing fume onto real footage and I am giving Fusion ago. A little bit different workflow from what I am used to (After Effects) but so far I think its really good! I also purchased Alan Mckay's advanced fume set a long while ago and the compositing tips are proving extremely useful!

Working on a 2 and half minute project due in at uni next month, shall post the final thing when am done! Just hope it doesnt look rubbish! :)

jimmy4d
03-07-2010, 01:56 AM
I can relate to that, but basically this approach can work if you do your private works.. ..Unfortunately in real life pipeline you can't just tell them why you hate passes so much. :-)
That depends on the scale of the project of course..

Did you both try finalRender with fumeFX ? I had easier results with it than with Vray..


I know what ya mean passes are how we all do it now,and I do all my animations this way but I'm a hobiest so screw the the production pipeline..haha, just started FR rendering and man it's way faster then VR, sorry but vray has goten so slow on my machine, can't wait anymore.

Fabian...........dude that is so sweet mate...........great work........:bowdown:

Dreamie
03-07-2010, 10:26 PM
Yes I understand the approach of the temperature randomness.. But I'm still not sure I follow your procedure.. I added to the quote what you previously wrote - If I understand correctly you do the following steps:
1. Use a simple source first with noise in the fuel and temp.
2. Make pflow particles with a fumefollow op to follow the fume simple source emission.
3. Take those particles to a particle source which goes back to a new fume sim. Gravity vector in fume helps them go sideways..

Or I probably got it wrong and misunderstood why you need to have the particles follow the sim
if they're already in the sim.. Thanks :-)

adom86 (http://forums.cgsociety.org/member.php?u=410788), Good luck with that! :)

I'm using a gravity vector for moving it sideways, the particles follow the sim.
The main key is the temperature, here is a picture of the temp channel.

I'm emitting from a simple src with a noise in temp and fuel and a particle system with the fumefollow operator. Now the main trick is to get this pyrocloud-look is to get a lot of diffent temperatures in your grid! There are many ways to do this, I'm using an AFC on the particles with velocity to temperature with a high random value. Also a HIGH timescale helps! I'm not using any turbulence!

Hope that helps,
Fabian

adom86
03-07-2010, 10:48 PM
FabianB, I think I can agree with Dreamie here. Why do you need the particles to follow the sim if the sim has already been simulated to go side ways.

Be interesting to see what exactly you have used the particles for.

Good work though :P

FabianB
03-07-2010, 11:50 PM
Sorry, yeah the way I explained it was a little confusing. Of course you can simulate everything in one go, simple src and particles. I simulated the simple src first, to get the general movement of the smoke right. This is more a workflow thing, once I got the motion right, I added the particles to get this pyroclastic look in there.
You can see it when you look at the wip, the first one was just the simple src without the particles:
http://www.vimeo.com/8035784

I liked the movement, but there wasn't enough detail, so I added the particles to get random temperatures in the grid and to get the pyroclastic look. The only purpose of the particles is to get a random temp distribution:
http://www.vimeo.com/8091482

Of course you can do it in one step.

blackout0826
03-08-2010, 03:57 PM
Hello guys,
I'm fairly new to FumeFx and I've read last pages and they were very helpful.
So here is my first FumeFx explosion http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AENccvPC0Fs.
C&C are welcomed

Best Regards,
Aleksandar

Darknon
03-09-2010, 03:59 AM
FabianB (http://forums.cgsociety.org/member.php?u=413795): It really looks awesome, and especially with the random temperture, makes it alot more real. One thing I'm a bit confused about, is particles and temperture. When you put random temperature to a particle source, does that mean that each particle will have a random temperture assigned, or do the particles get a new temperture on each frame?

Zack Attack
03-17-2010, 06:50 PM
Hey guys I have another question. I have been using fume for about a few weeks and I must say I am really enjoying the more simple approach it has to it compared to the maya fluids. I also am loving this the plugin in kraktoa. For the momment I am working on this kind of effect http://vimeo.com/7555542
So far I understand the the fume+pflow to kraktoa processes, but i am am un sure how to get the smoke in fume fx to stay at the bottom like fog. I want to have a logo rise out of the fog and turn that fog in to kraktoa for that underwater sand effect. If you guys have any suggestions that would be great thank you.

amckay
03-17-2010, 07:05 PM
Looks good, are you emitting from particles? I would add more divergence so the particles spread more, I would also add more expansion to your fuel so it grows bigger, and also add more velocity to your fume particle src so it has a bit more impact to the explosion

Definitely a great start, good work!

martaaay
03-17-2010, 07:28 PM
@ZackAttack, put a FumeFX gravity vector and flip it upside down (dont forget to link it to the FumeFX container!).

Zack Attack
03-17-2010, 07:50 PM
@ZackAttack, put a FumeFX gravity vector and flip it upside down (dont forget to link it to the FumeFX container!).

Thank you, I was trying the forces> gravity. But I forgot fluids normally handles gravity by its self. Would you suggest a simple emitter, emit smoke have it settle and then set some sort of a initial state. So I can have it stationary from frame one?

Mills
03-17-2010, 08:29 PM
Hi Zack Attack

Allan McKay has a tutorial on his dvd that shows how to do something similar.
"Fume FX: Advanced - the ultimate solution for Fume FX Training"
8 - Utilizing Vectors To Drive Particles
http://vfxsolution.com/allanmckay/store/

Basically u need to tell your smoke to not have any any movement as it is being emitted.

I could be mistaken but as far as i can remember. Create a simple sources "box". Go to the "Obj/Src" tab in fume fx. Select your emitter. Set everything to 0: fuel, temperature, velocities (object, direction, radial) and turbulence (amount, scale) set them all to 0. Then you should have no movement (initial state)
Use the default setting for the rest of the fume fx settings and take it from there.

By the look of the movie you posted i think it is just a object that is being scaled by its radius that interacts with the smoke or something...

E

It feels like i just pirated that tutorial. :hmm:

martaaay
03-17-2010, 09:39 PM
Mills covered it. When I needed this, I used a simple box to emit, and I had it emit just barely from the bottom.

If you like, I can post my 2010 .max file and/or screenshots. I needed a mist, but did not need it to stand still. I too recommend Allan McKay's DVD's. Daaaamn good.

Zack Attack
03-18-2010, 02:47 PM
Thank you guys, its working. I am liking the interaction between the text as it rises out the fog, its a bit chaotic for what I am going for, but I am gonna play around with it a little more. I wont know for sure I guess untill I run it through krakatoa and see what it looks like as particles. thanks!

martaaay
03-23-2010, 04:46 AM
I'm looking for a way to remove a solid object from FumeFX's list during an animation. There's some smoke that is colliding with a box and, just at the right time, I want the box to disappear allowing the smoke to pass by.

I can't just move the box really quickly out of the way because FFX will use that to simulate a push on the smoke.

amckay
03-23-2010, 05:13 AM
Hey mate, if you turn down the speed mult the object won't affect anything
so then you can animate it moving out of the way safely

JohnnyRandom
03-23-2010, 05:57 AM
You could also try and sim it with the object and on the last frame the object exists do a snapshot, render, remove the object and continue the simulation with a Load Initial State.

FXwars! Nuke! Go Vote! (http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?f=139&t=864569) :) Some nice entries, people put some good time into them.

tool2heal
03-23-2010, 06:01 AM
that's a damn good idea.

If it's a short enough sim. you can always sim to the frame you want, then hit stop, then move the box and hit the continue simulation button.

martaaay
03-23-2010, 07:41 PM
Thanks amckay and johnny! I'll try those out next time. I was in such a rush that I tried simply translating out really fast so that the collision object was outside the simulation within 1 frame and I saw no noticeable force applied to the smoke.

Mills
03-24-2010, 12:01 PM
I have the go ahead to buy some Simulation Licenses. The render nodes we are getting only have 4 gigs of ram each. How a accurate is the "Sim: up to __MB"
Will I be able to do hires simulations with only 4 gigs? What will happen if the node run out of ram.
Sorry if these are stupid questions but i dont want to spend cash on Simulation Licenses if the nodes cant handle it.
Thanks
E

JonathanFreisler
03-24-2010, 12:36 PM
It really depends, the worst that will happen is max will run out of memory and not render/crash. Again the result will vary.

I would recommend more ram, even a minimal of 6-8. Four is a bit low if your serious about doing hires sims.

Will you be doing the sims on the network? or on your work station?

Mills
03-24-2010, 01:31 PM
ok thanks, that's what i was thinking. I want to run the simulations through backburner.
.

JonathanFreisler
03-24-2010, 01:37 PM
Maybe try running a complex sim locally on one of the render nodes to see if it can handle it?

i usually don't sim over the network, so it might be best to hear what a few more people have to say.

Mills
03-25-2010, 09:25 AM
So i assume if u have Simulation Licenses the simulation gets split up on all the nodes the same as a network render would, seeing that this has been fixed? "Bug fix: Solver fix - simulation was different when using different number of threads"

SoLiTuDe
03-25-2010, 02:46 PM
So i assume if u have Simulation Licenses the simulation gets split up on all the nodes the same as a network render would, seeing that this has been fixed? "Bug fix: Solver fix - simulation was different when using different number of threads"

Nope. It will run one unique sim / fume grid on a single machine. It cannot distribute a single sim to multiple computers. ...You can run different simulations on different computers, but cannot combine the machines for one simulation.

That bug refers to using different number of threads on a single machine (ie: 3 threads instead of 4 threads)

Mills
03-25-2010, 02:59 PM
O NO. So you can basically only sumulate as fast as your fasted computer for one simulation.
Anyway i bought the SL today. Playing the waiting game :)

jimmy4d
03-25-2010, 11:40 PM
Playing with Rayfire64 and fume.....fun stuff, could of done a lot better on the animation, textures and all but just looking at rayfire/Fume.

hope ya like.....http://www.3dglove.com/10/web/tower_2/Tower.html

JohnnyRandom
03-26-2010, 12:24 AM
Haha pretty cool, it totally reminds me of one of my all time fav games - the original Far Cry:)

Mills
03-26-2010, 11:43 AM
Hi
What's the work flow with fume and backburner. Let say I send the simulation to one node and when the simulation is done i want the rest of the nodes to render the simulation out?
Thanks!!

Glacierise
03-26-2010, 02:39 PM
You gotta read up on dependent jobs. Basically you can make one job render after another job is done.

JonathanFreisler
03-26-2010, 02:46 PM
I know there was also a simulate, then render script (I think Alan had one). Not sure if it works with back burner submitting it, but wouldn't be hard to include in said script.

Just for another option.

Mills
03-26-2010, 03:07 PM
OK thanks.... sorry should have searched for it.

PsychoSilence
03-29-2010, 11:31 PM
All right,
Ansi has a question to the uber fume nerds. Maybe it's something stooopid I'm missing but I dare to ask anything here :)

So i have a Fume sim. I render it with VRay. I want an object inside the smoke to illuminate the Smoke like a flourescent light bulb or phosphor tube (my geometry is more complex then that btw). I can easily create a vray light material and assign it to a geometry OR create a vray light and set it to Mesh and pick the geometry but i cant pick that geometry in the Illumination Tab in Fume since it only supports light sources (not even VRay lights are supported GI emitters, only legacy lights afaik). So, how can i make an object emit GI and illuminate the Smoke from the inside without hacking it and attaching a crap load of omni lights with Far Attenuation set to something small to pull it off? (see attachments, that approach would work without GI with the Scanliner just as fine). I'm sure that has been done before. Any insight might be helpful :)

Thanks in advance and kind regards to ya'll!

Anselm

JohnnyRandom
03-30-2010, 12:13 AM
It isn't a stoopid question, it is a limitation :sad:

Thats one way to do it :D

Or you use finalRender and fr object light :bounce: fR and Fume are pretty tight together (btw fR particleLight works with fume as well). Maybe suggest to Vlado that they add an object light to Vray which honestly since they do have a light material it would make sense to have a light object too.

Sorry that is the only way I know of. Other than that fake it with lights :shrug:

http://4rand.com/TEST/FumeFx/Smoke/frObjLight/FumeObjLight.jpg

PsychoSilence
03-30-2010, 12:57 AM
well, you can create a vray light and set it to mesh, then pick an object. i consicer that an object light...but its nt compatible with fume :(

JohnnyRandom
03-30-2010, 02:24 AM
Hmmm, I got one for yah :D Fume and scanline or whatever it won't matter...and no lights were harmed err used in this scene.

Have a look: ;) (you'll have to excuse the uber low res, I doing this on a tablet pc)

http://4rand.com/TEST/FumeFx/Smoke/frObjLight/FFX_objLight.jpg

PsychoSilence
03-30-2010, 04:41 AM
Mega LOL! I had the same idea. "Light fire with Fire!" is the theme song :D

JohnnyRandom
03-30-2010, 05:18 AM
Now your cooking with gas :D

Bandu
03-30-2010, 09:47 AM
Hi
What's the work flow with fume and backburner. Let say I send the simulation to one node and when the simulation is done i want the rest of the nodes to render the simulation out?
Thanks!!

first, send your sim job to one node
second, by sending the render job in Network Job Assignment of backburner klick on Dependencies.
- select your sim job and click Add and OK

now, your render job will wait till the sim job is done before it starts (see a plus in the icon)

also, check my FumeControlls script
http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?f=183&t=851235&highlight=bandu

cheers,
Bandu

NahuelL
03-30-2010, 09:35 PM
@Johnny: How did you exactly do this?

http://4rand.com/TEST/FumeFx/Smoke/frObjLight/FFX_objLight.jpg

FlorinMocanu
03-31-2010, 12:49 PM
I have a small question about rendering fumefx simulations and integrating them in a shot.

What method is the best in rendering them? Do you render them together with the rest of the shot or separate, to be composited later on in you Comp software? And if you render them separate, do you assign a matte-shadow material to the rest of the geometry so that you can get the lighting effect the simulation has on the geometry?

I'm kind of new to fumefx so my questions may look abit noobish :P.

Also, what would you prefer for rendering? scanline, mental ray or final render ?

Glacierise
03-31-2010, 02:02 PM
Since you can't matte a FFX (which is quite unpleasant) you need to render all your fumes together, and color them RGB to recolor them in post. Or you can render separately, if they dont overlap or you can live with it - like the one pass is completely behind the other one. You assign matte materials to your geometry AND a plane behing everything, you wanna AA/motionblur against a matte only. Scanline is OK, Vray and FR are better, havent really tried mr yet. Then in your post app you isolate the red/green/blue channels, and recolor. That's pretty much it basically, if you wanna illuminate to/from FFX there's some extra stuff you can do, like render different lights with different colors, R/G/B again, and use that in comp also. Fortunately FFX renders quickly, so most times you can afford rendering it a few times to get max control in post.

jimmy4d
03-31-2010, 02:16 PM
I have a small question about rendering fumefx simulations and integrating them in a shot.

What method is the best in rendering them? Do you render them together with the rest of the shot or separate, to be composited later on in you Comp software? And if you render them separate, do you assign a matte-shadow material to the rest of the geometry so that you can get the lighting effect the simulation has on the geometry?

I'm kind of new to fumefx so my questions may look abit noobish :P.

Also, what would you prefer for rendering? scanline, mental ray or final render ?


Get your hands on Allan mckays DVD's, he's got some great tips for layering your fume in your comp software.

adom86
04-07-2010, 11:32 AM
Hey all!

Just a few problems with the latest piece I am working on.

If you have a look at the video posted below the initial part of the impact (to the right side of screen) seems to be swirling around at an intense rate and I can't stop it shooting off to the container edge! (please ignore my failed attempt at blocking it with a temporary wall of geometry lol) I shall be taking that out.

The container I am working with is abotu 6500x6000x8000 so it is pretty damn big! Its taking an age to sim and then I notice mistakes :( The shockwave container is a hell of a lot wider, but not as high :P

I have got it set to 3 simulation steps, cubic and have the turbelence scale very low. I cant keep making the container larger as it is destroying my machine haha. I havent figured out exactly what each setting does to the behaviour of smoke but I was wondering if any would be responsible for this intense swirling at the start of the impact.

Work in Progress shot: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBDIQz79gWM

*Edit* youtube seems to have cut a second off which shows it best :(

Cheers!

NahuelL
04-07-2010, 04:03 PM
Are you using Particle Src?

If yes, you should use a PFow-ABurn Operator in PFlow (assuming you're using it) in the event you have the explosion. Then in the Particle Src, add that helper (that PFlow creates when you add that operator).
That should solve the problem ;)

That happened to me once, and I solved it by using that operator in the events i wanted, otherwise FumeFX will still emit smoke from PFlow. It doesn't always happen.

PS: PFlow-ABurn operator comes with AfterBurn.

JohnnyRandom
04-07-2010, 04:17 PM
Nice Adam, that looks pretty good IMO :)

I take it you are talking about the roll back of the smoke? Or is it that you want the smoke to stay more consolidated?

What type of Sources are you using?

On a global scale it looks pretty true to fact. Since the angle of impact is low your initial velocities are near the bottom of the grid creating an undercurrent. Instead of testing with such a dense contianer and waiting ages for it to sim, you can test for general movement by simming at a larger spacing value and only 1 simulation step, (more sim steps = longer sim time, more steps are good for a final) then turn on your viewport display->smoke just to see your basic behaviour. Note doing this is only used to craft your most basic movement, as you increase your voxel density the grid becomes much more sensitive to ALL influences.

The Turbulence setting simply generates a noise map and disturbs the voxel with it. This breaks up any uniformity and adds some artificial chaos to the grid. Turning it off all of the small plumes will retain more of their structure (of course, structure is dependent upon you vorticity and advection strides as well)

Voricity (The localized rotation of the air) is somewhat like Turbulence except it is not artificial it works directly with Advection Stride (the transportation of vorticity through the grid, this seem more like a scale factor to me rather than speed)

Jeff Lim (http://limjeff.wordpress.com/) did a pretty extensive test on Advection Stride and Vorticity, as well as Vorticity and Grid Spacing, take a look it is really interesting :)

If you think that the smoke is moving too fast, you can raise your velocity dampening (but be very careful this setting is super sensitive) A less velocity destructive way would be to raise the Temperature dissipation rate, this will kill off your voxel temp. faster and slow down temp propagation throughout the grid inherently slowing things down.

Also it looks like you are using additive mode for your smoke (I maybe wrong) switching this to set and increasing the the amount of smoke will have a lesser appearance of swirling since you aren't always creating more smoke in the voxel your are setting up a fixed amount.

adom86
04-08-2010, 03:06 AM
Nice Adam, that looks pretty good IMO :)

I take it you are talking about the roll back of the smoke? Or is it that you want the smoke to stay more consolidated?

What type of Sources are you using?

On a global scale it looks pretty true to fact. Since the angle of impact is low your initial velocities are near the bottom of the grid creating an undercurrent. Instead of testing with such a dense contianer and waiting ages for it to sim, you can test for general movement by simming at a larger spacing value and only 1 simulation step, (more sim steps = longer sim time, more steps are good for a final) then turn on your viewport display->smoke just to see your basic behaviour. Note doing this is only used to craft your most basic movement, as you increase your voxel density the grid becomes much more sensitive to ALL influences.

The Turbulence setting simply generates a noise map and disturbs the voxel with it. This breaks up any uniformity and adds some artificial chaos to the grid. Turning it off all of the small plumes will retain more of their structure (of course, structure is dependent upon you vorticity and advection strides as well)

Voricity (The localized rotation of the air) is somewhat like Turbulence except it is not artificial it works directly with Advection Stride (the transportation of vorticity through the grid, this seem more like a scale factor to me rather than speed)

Jeff Lim (http://limjeff.wordpress.com/) did a pretty extensive test on Advection Stride and Vorticity, as well as Vorticity and Grid Spacing, take a look it is really interesting :)

If you think that the smoke is moving too fast, you can raise your velocity dampening (but be very careful this setting is super sensitive) A less velocity destructive way would be to raise the Temperature dissipation rate, this will kill off your voxel temp. faster and slow down temp propagation throughout the grid inherently slowing things down.

Also it looks like you are using additive mode for your smoke (I maybe wrong) switching this to set and increasing the the amount of smoke will have a lesser appearance of swirling since you aren't always creating more smoke in the voxel your are setting up a fixed amount.

Thanks for the tips Johnny!

I think i've come up with a better sim that is more natural. I am a total idiot as I realised i had the side that the smoke hits, at pace, to block the voxels therefore causing the non-natural look!

I will give the Set amount ago as I always used additive, cheers.

Just simming about another 5 containers of other things then got to put the whole video together... I shall post it on here if it doesnt look too rubbish! :P

Dreamie
04-08-2010, 07:12 AM
Looks to me like you go and simulate a crazy size resolution containers before you stabilize your motion to a satisfactory result. Yes a higher res sim will never look the same as a higher one, but it still give you an idea of the general motion. Otherwise you'll lose a tremendous amount of time getting it right.

adom86
04-08-2010, 07:23 AM
Looks to me like you go and simulate a crazy size resolution containers before you stabilize your motion to a satisfactory result. Yes a higher res sim will never look the same as a higher one, but it still give you an idea of the general motion. Otherwise you'll lose a tremendous amount of time getting it right.

Hey Dreamie :)

You guys think i'm a high res sim crazy person! Hehe, I do loads of low res sims to get the general movement, I just never noticed I had blocked one wall and I was trying to figure out what setting I had messed up :P

The high res sim does come out a lot different anyway and I got it wrong some times. Anyway, all should be sorted now and 'should' look better. Got a nice 5 hours to go on the render still :)

Dreamie
04-08-2010, 07:48 AM
Hey Dreamie :)

You guys think i'm a high res sim crazy person! Hehe, I do loads of low res sims to get the general movement, I just never noticed I had blocked one wall and I was trying to figure out what setting I had messed up :P

The high res sim does come out a lot different anyway and I got it wrong some times. Anyway, all should be sorted now and 'should' look better. Got a nice 5 hours to go on the render still :)

Sorry, my mistake then. :-)

adom86
04-10-2010, 06:35 PM
Hello again!

Just letting you guys see my beta version of a project am working on. The sand explosion I showed earlier is right at the end if you want to skip ahead (the new and improved version!). There are a few fumeFX shots before that of meteors and explosions on 3d tracked footage. Ignore the audio as it isn't finished yet :P

http://www.adamtrowers.co.uk/?p=110

PS: play it in full HD!

:)

fireknght2
04-10-2010, 10:29 PM
I like the video adom86

jimmy4d
04-12-2010, 01:35 AM
Hello again!

Just letting you guys see my beta version of a project am working on. The sand explosion I showed earlier is right at the end if you want to skip ahead (the new and improved version!). There are a few fumeFX shots before that of meteors and explosions on 3d tracked footage. Ignore the audio as it isn't finished yet :P

http://www.adamtrowers.co.uk/?p=110

PS: play it in full HD!

:)


HAHAHA

That was awsome adam.............

JohnnyRandom
04-12-2010, 03:52 PM
Nice job Adam, thats looking quite good :)

PexElroy
04-12-2010, 06:46 PM
Nice work adom86 - :cool: dig the grungy & ruff look over and the smoke, camera work and speed.

Klemen
04-12-2010, 08:41 PM
Hey everyone!

This is a big scale explosion created with FumeFx and particle flow.

http://www.klemenlozar.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Tank_Explosion1.jpg

>> QuickTime link (http://www.klemenlozar.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Tank_Explosion_Lg_Prog.mov) << - Recommended

>> YouTube link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XR-_2BBGo5c) <<

JohnnyRandom
04-12-2010, 09:13 PM
That looks real good too :) , only crit, I do see Godzilla Fire (Godzilla Fire = fire from a scale model set shot at a higher frame rate to slow down motion to give the appearance of a large fire but tendril structure is out of scale) which hurts your overall scene scale at the end.

Great whizzer-by-the-ear sound byte! :)

Darknon
04-13-2010, 10:38 AM
Klemen: Really nice that. Can you give a short lovdown as to how you did the different elements in the simulation? The bottom is clearly particle source with a low radius. What about the main explosion? Is it simple sources or particles? What's the key to get that great fireball shape?

Thanks

Klemen
04-13-2010, 11:36 AM
JohnnyRandom : Thanks and I agree, that fire doesn't help my scene at all :)

Darknon: Thanks, everything except that big rising plume was made with particle sources. One technique that I like to use to create a good looking fireball is making a few simple sources in one fumefx container. I used 3 in my case. Then you can rotate them arround until you get a desired shape. Allan Mckay explains this technique on his DVD (FumeFx: Advanced).

Hope this helps

Glacierise
04-13-2010, 12:27 PM
making a few simple sources in one fumefx container. I used 3 in my case. Then you can rotate them arround

You can also use their directional and radial velocity, this makes for cool look control :)

Darknon
04-15-2010, 10:48 AM
Klemen: Thanks. I actually bought that DVD :) I just have a hard time with that method not making it look like 3 big blobs. But I guess I have to give it another go :)

Klemen
04-16-2010, 09:04 AM
I hear you Ronnie I didn't work for me right away either. You have to play with the setup a bit to get the right values and a nice fireball :)

JamesSt
04-20-2010, 10:50 PM
Hello, i have got a problem if anyone wouldn't mind helping. I have created a fumefx effect with a 'Ringwave' (In Extended Primitives) and have emitted smoke from it moving out.

From a horizontal perspective it looks right to how I want but when i look from above the effect changes it goes a lot darker the textures sort of smudge and the edges go all pixelated.

I can then just move the camera back to a horizontal view and it goes back but i am needing a view done from above and no idea why this happens, even with change no lighting or settings.

http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/1635/picid.jpg (http://img689.imageshack.us/i/picid.jpg/)

If anyone could help it would be much appreciated.

James.

martaaay
04-21-2010, 04:12 AM
Found some nice explosions reference:
http://videosift.com/video/Slow-Motion-Explosion-Sonic-Booms

amckay
04-23-2010, 05:57 PM
martaaay very cool!

jamesst - just adjust your color and lighting??

ah-fx
04-23-2010, 07:01 PM
Found some nice explosions reference:
http://videosift.com/video/Slow-Motion-Explosion-Sonic-Booms

that is cool, you guys should check out this thread (http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?p=6480032#post6480032).

jimmy4d
04-26-2010, 12:00 AM
wow look at the new maya stuff..........I think i'm going to load maya again just for this...............anybody want to shed some light on this............ looks cool as hell..........http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZ9mjcb8jLQ&playnext_from=TL&videos=h4lp57vA_IE&feature=grec

amckay
04-26-2010, 02:12 AM
oh is that with nfluids? yeah its pretty nice upressing feature, pyrofx for houdini works great for this sort of stuff

I was just banging some stuff out at breakfast on my laptop, lot of large scale explosions like this

http://vimeo.com/11201915

That's only a few friends but I'll knock out a proper render when I get a chance, there's a lot of different types of explosions you can do fluids wise, esp with krakatoa involved

Bandu
04-26-2010, 08:17 AM
Yea, Maya fluids are great, especially 2011 with adaptive grid.
Let see what Fume 2.0 is doing...

@Allan, great explo :thumbsup:

Bandu

Glacierise
04-26-2010, 08:43 AM
Respect for Maya Fluids, but - nothing you can't do in Fume. And there's also Phoenix coming!

PsychoSilence
04-26-2010, 04:21 PM
well, maya fluids come in 2D as instant card version too. i dare to say you need more efford in max to do that aka build cards youtrself :D

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6dDesUPkMo&feature=fvhl) Spectacular footage from above the volcanic crater in Island (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6dDesUPkMo&feature=fvhl)

(The comments are entertaining as well :) )

kind regards,
Anselm

JohnnyRandom
04-26-2010, 04:45 PM
Impressive footgage :)

mmmnn Living planet!

EDIT: BTW crazy freakin pilot "the pilot is sure the northerly wind will carry the dust away from the helicopter"


(The comments are entertaining as well :) )


LOL

wreath
04-28-2010, 04:46 AM
well, maya fluids come in 2D as instant card version too. i dare to say you need more efford in max to do that aka build cards youtrself :D

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6dDesUPkMo&feature=fvhl) Spectacular footage from above the volcanic crater in Island (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6dDesUPkMo&feature=fvhl)

(The comments are entertaining as well :) )

kind regards,
Anselm

Thanks Anselm great footage :thumbsup:
This one made my day hahaha :D "lighting...IN A VOLCANO???? is that really necessary? "

Allan I really liked your quick tests, looking pretty unique.

ah-fx
04-28-2010, 07:36 PM
Respect for Maya Fluids, but - nothing you can't do in Fume. And there's also Phoenix coming!

has anyone had a chance to play with the beta pf phoenix yet?

Strob
04-28-2010, 08:14 PM
Maybe but if we do, we signed some forms preventing to talk about it...

Have you seen this reference footage of appolo launching fire in slowmo
http://vimeo.com/4366695

amckay
04-28-2010, 11:31 PM
cool strob! How are you btw?

Glacierise
04-29-2010, 09:11 AM
That footage is getting deeper ingrained in my mind every day! :D

And yeah, forums would have been more exciting if there weren't NDAs in the world, but that's it... :)

ah-fx
04-29-2010, 07:50 PM
Maybe but if we do, we signed some forms preventing to talk about it...



opps my bad :shrug:

wreath
05-01-2010, 02:49 AM
Hey guys,
just finished a new shot (http://yeatvfx.com/works/triton--atmosphere--jump.html) (Quicktime 29mb / 720p) with fume,wanted to share.. :D
cheers

amckay
05-01-2010, 04:50 AM
Holy shit mate that is freaking impressive! Amazing work!
Is that FFX 2? (asking because its incredibly detailed if its just a standard container) amazing stuff!

HeadSmell
05-01-2010, 05:22 AM
Yea looks great man,
Can you explain what you did to get such a wide variety and variation of colors in the plume?
Cheers

renaissance01
05-01-2010, 08:27 AM
That is one bad-ass looking shot dude! Awesome work.
What kind of setup did you have to get all that detail in your sim/s?

adom86
05-01-2010, 10:00 AM
That was awesome! That must have taken years to sim! very good work buddy!

jimmy4d
05-01-2010, 12:34 PM
Yigit.......dude that just plan frocking rocks man. Again another masterpiece. :beer:

Well done mate. My only crit........that I didn't do it. :)

kogden
05-01-2010, 01:06 PM
well shit balls that looked freeking amazing! :O

Cryptite
05-01-2010, 08:03 PM
So that would be what the Adama maneuver is not supposed to look like.

Amazing, dude.

wreath
05-02-2010, 12:11 AM
Holy shit mate that is freaking impressive! Amazing work!
Is that FFX 2? (asking because its incredibly detailed if its just a standard container) amazing stuff!

Thanks Allan! appreciate it, It's FFX 1.2 There are four containers in the scene;
explosion,dust wave,shockwave and ember smoke trails.

Yea looks great man,
Can you explain what you did to get such a wide variety and variation of colors in the plume?
Cheers

Thanks Alexander, actually on this one I started as fluid lighting & integration study/demonstration so it's all about lighting, really nothing special with the smoke/fire shaders.
I've also uploaded a brief fluids pass breakdown that you may wanna check. Click here (http://yeatvfx.com/breakdowns/triton--atmosphere--jump--breakdown.html) for TITS

That is one bad-ass looking shot dude! Awesome work.
What kind of setup did you have to get all that detail in your sim/s?

Thanks Alex, nothing so far from my usual approach, for the explosion container, used multiple simple sources, no particle driven source involved.
Explosion container is 550x550x500 / 1.0 spacing.

Adam, James, Kieran thanks guys!

So that would be what the Adama maneuver is not supposed to look like.

Amazing, dude.

Haha exactly! Exodus Part II FTW!
:beer: cheers

amckay
05-02-2010, 12:37 AM
great stuff mate - btw Yigit if you're in LA next weekend I'm flying in Saturday night to drink copious amounts of alcohol for my birthday, so you and everyone else are welcome to come along and join in on the boozing

Cryptite
05-02-2010, 02:10 AM
You're just gonna try to get him drunk and have him tell you all the settings to that explosion, Allan. We know your tricks :)

PS, do we get to flood a city in realflow yet?

So, Yigit, how long were your frames taking to sim, and did you manage to get over a gig per frame on your machine?

HeadSmell
05-02-2010, 04:38 AM
Thanks Alexander, actually on this one I started as fluid lighting & integration study/demonstration so it's all about lighting, really nothing special with the smoke/fire shaders.


Cool, so can you give some info on your lighting/rending set up?
Did you render each light in it's own separate Red Green blue Chanel? so you can control each Chanel in post?
or did you set up your lights with basic color tints?

Cheers

em3
05-02-2010, 06:35 AM
Then apparently it's working just like it's supposed to.

Panze
05-02-2010, 09:19 AM
hi ,
i have a problem in install's fumeFX
when i click on authorize , page of register closes fast
it doesn't lets me crack
what do i do ?
TANX

Buy the plugin?

jimmy4d
05-02-2010, 01:14 PM
haha............dude you can't talk like that on this fourm, but if you put all your money (and everyone you know) in a box and mail it to my home I will see what I can do..hahahahahah

wreath
05-03-2010, 02:22 AM
great stuff mate - btw Yigit if you're in LA next weekend I'm flying in Saturday night to drink copious amounts of alcohol for my birthday, so you and everyone else are welcome to come along and join in on the boozing

Allan, that would be awesome but currently I'm in NY will be back in LA within couple weeks though.
Normally I live in Santa Monica so we can grab some beers later when you have time.
:beer:

You're just gonna try to get him drunk and have him tell you all the settings to that explosion, Allan. We know your tricks :)

PS, do we get to flood a city in realflow yet?

So, Yigit, how long were your frames taking to sim, and did you manage to get over a gig per frame on your machine?

Haha! good one :D

Tom, I can't remember the exact calculation times per frames but for the explosion, 152 frames took about 6 hours to simulate on a i7 920 / 9gb machine.Total simulation data is around 8gb. Actually It could be much more detailed if I had something like Anselm's beast!! :drool:

Cool, so can you give some info on your lighting/rending set up?
Did you render each light in it's own separate Red Green blue Chanel? so you can control each Chanel in post?
or did you set up your lights with basic color tints?

Cheers

Alexander, I used scanline renderer for all the fluid passes,most of the color work done within studio max with colored lights like bluish omnis as skylight, slightly yellow spot as key light and some dirty colored spots to fake illumination from the terrain. One thing I love to do is using attenuation feature on fill lights it provides smooth transition between colors and makes it look diverse, It's the main simple trick. RGB channel workflow is wise to do but since it's just a personal project I wouldn't need any major change after renders.

cheers

HeadSmell
05-03-2010, 02:55 AM
One thing I love to do is using attenuation feature on fill lights it provides smooth transition between colors and makes it look diverse, It's the main simple trick

Excellent,
Thanks man
...got a bit of R&D this weekend :D

Cheers

JonathanFreisler
05-03-2010, 02:04 PM
Yeah, Mixing the lights up a little with a whole bunch of slightly different coloured ones and using attenuation adds so much to a fume sim.

People say that as a user you don't get much control over the colours of a sim, but using lights properly you have as much control as you could want!

SoLiTuDe
05-03-2010, 04:21 PM
People say that as a user you don't get much control over the colours of a sim, but using lights properly you have as much control as you could want!

...Compared to Houdini you don't get much control... :D

ThallDesign
05-03-2010, 04:32 PM
...Compared to Houdini you don't get much control... :D

I think it's common knowledge on this forum that Houdini doesn't exist...

Bandu
05-03-2010, 04:47 PM
Hey guys,
just finished a new shot (http://yeatvfx.com/works/triton--atmosphere--jump.html) (Quicktime 29mb / 720p) with fume,wanted to share.. :D
cheers

well, everybody loves it and nobody criticize so I will :buttrock:

love the end part of the explosion, sure it is looking very cool, but what happens in the beginning?
there is some strong light 2 frames before the ship even touches the ground and no shadow from the ship at all.
The shock wave looks also strange in the beginning, it appears from nowhere, especially on the right side.
For me it looks like the explosion is not coming from inside the ship but underneath it? mine field??
sure because of missing ship destruction.
And take a closer look at the FFX shadow, where comes the hard edge from in the top area?
There are also some black hard lines visible, what is this??

this has some potential for sure,
well done but still a lot to do,

nice job dude!

cheers,
Bandu

wreath
05-03-2010, 07:26 PM
I would love to see the destruction of the ship too :D shot really needs it but like I mentioned did this shot as fluid integration study, maybe next time :)
for the explosion, as soon as the bottom back of the ship(engine) hits ground we get that strong light on left side and then second one on the center of the bottom so tried to make it look like a little chain reaction BOOM-BOOM. Again, at this point some detailed ship destruction would really help but didn't want to spend more than 6 days for the whole thing.
The hard edge is coming from the lower shockwave dust pass I still don't think it ruins the overall look, could be fixed in the post though.
Thanks for the feedback
cheers :beer:

andybyrne462
05-03-2010, 11:41 PM
...Compared to Houdini you don't get much control... :D


and compared to Houdini..you actually get stuff done. There's a reason why I have the only windows box under my desk with fume on it here at work.

It's the "bail out machine" haha

renaissance01
05-04-2010, 12:47 AM
and compared to Houdini..you actually get stuff done. There's a reason why I have the only windows box under my desk with fume on it here at work.

It's the "bail out machine" haha

Haha, bail out machine...You guys using Houdini Pyro at Asylum? I played around with it a while ago, it had some cool features like the upresing and fast viewport display etc but the volumetric shader control and rendering times were a bit sluggish to say the least, I always wondered if studios had actually adopted it into their pipelines...

SoLiTuDe
05-04-2010, 01:08 AM
and compared to Houdini..you actually get stuff done. There's a reason why I have the only windows box under my desk with fume on it here at work.

It's the "bail out machine" haha

Absolutely! I was only talking about the color stuff... you pay for control in many, many ways. :beer:

andybyrne462
05-04-2010, 09:40 PM
Haha, bail out machine...You guys using Houdini Pyro at Asylum? I played around with it a while ago, it had some cool features like the upresing and fast viewport display etc but the volumetric shader control and rendering times were a bit sluggish to say the least, I always wondered if studios had actually adopted it into their pipelines...

yeah bigtime houdini shop. I got into it pretty seriously for a while, but just got sick of setting stuff up from scratch. I don't know, I just use whatever makes my life easy.

SoLiTuDe
05-04-2010, 10:32 PM
yeah bigtime houdini shop. I got into it pretty seriously for a while, but just got sick of setting stuff up from scratch. I don't know, I just use whatever makes my life easy.

...lazy... :D

andybyrne462
05-04-2010, 11:00 PM
...lazy... :D

ha yeah in a way.

but what's more lazy, using what's faster and easier, or doing 2 shots in 6 months ? :shrug:

SoLiTuDe
05-04-2010, 11:34 PM
ha yeah in a way.

but what's more lazy, using what's faster and easier, or doing 2 shots in 6 months ? :shrug:

Depends on how bad ass those two shots are. :D haha... I totally agree though. It all depends on what's needed. Houdini's Digital Asset system is nice... should help with reusability with things if it's set up 'right'. (which is where you'll probably lose 80% of your time)

amckay
05-05-2010, 04:13 PM
Yeah max dies in the ass when it comes to referencing properly
Here's a question, has anyone used max's containers? And do they work with particles? I think I had a stab at it once and it didn't allow you to capture particles into it, has that been fixed?

ThallDesign
05-07-2010, 04:41 PM
I'm having a lot of trouble right now rendering a simulation. It's a dry-ice effect, just a wall of vapour moving down. The scene is irrelevant because I've been having this issue with other high-res simulations as well.

Everything is perfect and renders quick when I check "Cast Shadows", but when I check "Receive Shadows" it often freezes on calculating 1/4 of the the illumination map (I think this is the term)

When Receive Shadows is off, it renders quickly, but doesn't look very nice.

I realize the calculation is an intensive process, but it shouldn't outright freeze max, right? Are there settings I can play with to keep my nice shadows, but have the processor load be a bit less? I can't really lower my sim quality so I'm looking for another workaround.

I'm running Windows 7 64-bit, Max 2009 64-bit, and my computer is a Core i7 920 with 12GB of RAM. I shouldn't be freezing ANYTHING with this machine. One weird thing I do notice is when I have to start the task manager to hard-close Max it's usually using 3.9GB to 4.9GB, somewhere around there, but nowhere near the 12GB my system has.

Why would Max be freezing up when there is a lot more RAM available to be used?

Are there hidden settings where I can tell Max to use more RAM or something? in 64-bit I thought it would happen automatically.

Glacierise
05-07-2010, 04:57 PM
Check out your lights and shadow types. You should use spot/direct lights with AP shadow maps for FFX only (almost) to stay trouble-free.

ThallDesign
05-07-2010, 05:08 PM
Check out your lights and shadow types. You should use spot/direct lights with AP shadow maps for FFX only (almost) to stay trouble-free.

I'm using 2 Direct lights, with AB Shadow Maps and overshoot enabled. One is mid-level, off to the side(bounce) and the other is almost straight above, but aimed slightly forward(sky). Think it's the overshoot that is causing my headache? I hadn't even considered that until you mentioned the lights.

I hate having Eureka moments when I can't get to my home PC for hours...........

Glacierise
05-07-2010, 05:08 PM
Rebuild your setup with simple target spots and AB Shadow maps and it will most probably be ok. And make the cones small, conserves shadow map resolution. And clear the light cache, there is a button in the illumination tab.

MatthiasM
05-08-2010, 12:37 PM
hi guys i did use fume for a space scene, you can have a look at it here:

Youtube HD: link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oaPXp_wlCkg&hd=1)
Vimeo: link (http://www.vimeo.com/11551295)

The uncompressed clip looks way cooler on a big screen, anyway tell me what you think :)

http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/9642/starsp.jpg

Bandu
05-08-2010, 03:22 PM
I think it looks amazing!
very cool Matthias, well done.

martaaay
05-08-2010, 04:50 PM
@MatthiasM that looks amazing! Are the stars made of particles? If so, are they sync'd in some way with the FFX sim?

JohnnyRandom
05-08-2010, 09:22 PM
...anyway tell me what you think :)


Great colors, beautiful electric blues, LOL as someone else had mentioned I expected a symphonic piece playing along side :) Nice job!

Darknon
05-09-2010, 02:56 PM
Hey all

I'm working on this explosion, and it's turning out pretty good I think. I have a few questions.

Explosion_61
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTXby9obVrM

1. Part of the smoke is getting kind of frosen at some point in the simulation, and it just hanging there unyielding like, it's just a small part of the smoke getting stuck, but it's still a problem. Anyone knows the solution to this?

2. I'm not sure if you can see it in this bad youtube upload, but it's like the shadows on the smoke is jittering/flikkering a bit. Solution?

No more questions for now :)

ThallDesign
05-10-2010, 01:32 PM
Rebuild your setup with simple target spots and AB Shadow maps and it will most probably be ok. And make the cones small, conserves shadow map resolution. And clear the light cache, there is a button in the illumination tab.

I didn't get a chance to thank you over the weekend, but deleting and creating a new lighting setup got me some better results, and no more freezing when it calculates the illumination map.

JonathanFreisler
05-10-2010, 01:45 PM
@ Darknon,

1, Not too sure what 'part' of the smoke you mean? Is it early on or later? and where abouts.

2, Try increasing your shadow map size, whats it currently at now? If its not that it could be something to do with your shadow step size, or rendering steps. Try shadow map size first.

PsychoSilence
05-11-2010, 06:47 PM
FumeFX 2.0 is scheduled for a May 20th 2010 release :)

ThallDesign
05-11-2010, 07:36 PM
FumeFX 2.0 is scheduled for a May 20th 2010 release :)

Will we start seeing "What's New" or teaser videos before that date?

renaissance01
05-12-2010, 01:21 AM
FumeFX 2.0 is scheduled for a May 20th 2010 release :)

Awesome news! Can't wait to see what new features have been added.
Here's hoping we can finally have individual render settings per Fume Source!
Cheers for the heads up Anselm :)

SoLiTuDe
05-12-2010, 02:51 AM
Here's hoping we can finally have individual render settings per Fume Source!

Didn't make the cut... though the only thing that would probably be possible would probably be color per source (which I hear would still be hard to code). There is a recent post in the afterworks forum where Kresimir lists the features for 2.0... feel free to log in over there and check out the list.

vishy123
05-12-2010, 03:07 AM
Concept of Nuclear Mushroom and Large Scale Explosions in FumeFx and some Explosions and Fire.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xefw1s4zvzs

JohnnyRandom
05-12-2010, 03:14 AM
Personally, and this is just my opinion the system as a whole has a pretty good workflow. If any thing was singular source based it should be the shader options that I think would be the most useful or at the least being able to assign an integer value or source id to a source so you could color it externally via pflow, tp, or krakatoa.

Not sure how it works but in Fume2 you can use an existing grid as a source, that should be interesting :)

vishy123
05-12-2010, 05:06 AM
Ok heres the Nuke Mushroom RnD and Some Large Scale Smoke and Explosions I have been doin. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xefw1s4zvzs

EricTT
05-12-2010, 08:33 AM
Ok heres the Nuke Mushroom RnD and Some Large Scale Smoke and Explosions I have been doin. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xefw1s4zvzs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xefw1s4zvzs)
FumeFX 2.0?

vishy123
05-12-2010, 08:34 AM
No, FumeFx 1.2

Glacierise
05-12-2010, 08:47 AM
What do you mean color by source? A voxel has some smoke, let's say, put into it by a source. It moves, advects with other smoke, created by another source and spreaded to the voxel, at this point how can you say which source gave how much smoke to the voxel? I don't think that's a realistic feature to get :) I would also like to get some more shading features like temperature gradiens, proximity gradients, light gradients etc and combining them, but for now you can do all that stuff in Krakatoa - a few extra steps, but you can! :)

EricTT
05-12-2010, 08:47 AM
No, FumeFx 1.2
good job,did you do it with particle?can you give some tips?thanks

Glacierise
05-12-2010, 08:49 AM
Hm ok, if you 'tag' the smoke by every emitter, then blend as advection goes. But that will require one more channel per voxel = more memory and more diskspace for the sims. You'd be able to turn it off if you dont need it though. And still, you can do it in Krakatoa...

SoLiTuDe
05-12-2010, 02:02 PM
I think this is what people would be after (both images are Houdini's fluids):

http://www.peterclaes.be/tutorials/PeterClaesThesis/images/mergin_colors_comp_02.0180.jpg

and

http://www.peterclaes.be/tutorials/PeterClaesThesis/images/color_emission_helix.0050.jpg

amckay
05-12-2010, 03:20 PM
basically if emitters had a lot of the containers contents in the individual emitters you will have a lot more control. fuel, color etc. if each emitter had those individual parameters then your simulations can have nice tendril small flames right next to big explosions, magic fx etc.

So that is the ultimate direction to go for control

Glacierise
05-12-2010, 03:51 PM
Yeah that looks like a color channel. Nice :)

I think this is what people would be after (both images are Houdini's fluids):

http://www.peterclaes.be/tutorials/PeterClaesThesis/images/mergin_colors_comp_02.0180.jpg

and

http://www.peterclaes.be/tutorials/PeterClaesThesis/images/color_emission_helix.0050.jpg

JohnnyRandom
05-12-2010, 04:39 PM
The only prob I would see with individual sim settings per source, your entire grids voxels would have to be the size of the smallest source settings, who the hell knows on the tech side what implications that would have, it would be cool feature, just seems like one that you would see in Fume 4.0 :D

A source ID on the other hand shouldn't be that far of a stretch, as it is, yeah there is smoke in a voxel it seems it could be determined were it came from, you would need it anyway if you were to do any kind of different shader by source manipulation.

It would be that much easier in krakatoa, input channel (source ID) to vector(color) to say voxel ID(just made that one up :) )

SoLiTuDe
05-13-2010, 03:42 AM
The only prob I would see with individual sim settings per source, your entire grids voxels would have to be the size of the smallest source settings, who the hell knows on the tech side what implications that would have, it would be cool feature, just seems like one that you would see in Fume 4.0 :D

A source ID on the other hand shouldn't be that far of a stretch, as it is, yeah there is smoke in a voxel it seems it could be determined were it came from, you would need it anyway if you were to do any kind of different shader by source manipulation.

It would be that much easier in krakatoa, input channel (source ID) to vector(color) to say voxel ID(just made that one up :) )


I think source ID is probably perfectly doable, just like color is in Houdini, in fact you could also add source ID in houdini if you wanted to... and blend when they mix just like you can do with colors. Hmmm.. even thinking about it now I was going to say that sounds like a bitch, but with Houdini I think you could probably have differentut turbulence, advection or dampening settings in different voxels, based on what source it came from... hmmm that's something new to play with I think (though probably over my head).
What would be really nice is an adaptive subdivision of the grid, where you would have more voxels where you need them (like close to the camera is nice and detailed, but far away is less detailed... less voxels. Fume2 might have a way to do something similar, but if multiple scattering doesn't work between grids (not sure if this is in fume2) then that might negate some of the benefit. :D

raytracer2k7
05-13-2010, 06:28 AM
Hi guys, I:m trying to do detailed fire up close in fume but not succeeding. I upped the quality to 5, iteration to 200, step to 3. turbonance to .5 xyz scale to .02 and detail to 5. Also uped vorticity to 1. And grid spacing to .6. Noise texture on fuel and temp.
It looks good from far distance but looks blobby up close. Any other setting to get thin flases or almost sparks looking. Thanks.

karanjaura
05-13-2010, 07:25 AM
Hi Guys,
i am new to FumeFX so doing some RnD's to get a hang of it,while playing with FumeFx and Volumetric Lights i came across one problem,it seems that Volumetric Lights doesn't interact with FumeFX properly,i am attaching some sample images so that you guys can understand what exactly i mean.Is there any workaround to fix this problem or am i missing something which i dnt know.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/47823689@N05

Cheers
Karan

JonathanFreisler
05-13-2010, 12:48 PM
@ raytracer2k7

Try looking into some tutorials if your stuck on something like that. Its to do with your spacing, the lower it is the longer the simulation time but more detail your sim will have. the settings you mentioned done really have anything to do with detail.

JohnnyRandom
05-13-2010, 06:01 PM
...with Houdini I think you could probably have differentut turbulence, advection or dampening settings in different voxels, based on what source it came from... hmmm that's something new to play with...

Insanely interesting concept, that would be cool, I imagine some really interesting effects, like mutliple fuels types interacting, since not all types of fuel burn equally :)


What would be really nice is an adaptive subdivision of the grid, where you would have more voxels where you need them (like close to the camera is nice and detailed, but far away is less detailed... less voxels. Fume2 might have a way to do something similar, but if multiple scattering doesn't work between grids (not sure if this is in fume2) then that might negate some of the benefit. :D

Another interesting idea for sure, could you imagine how this would cut down on sim time? Could be a great benefit as long as your cam/obj were at birth level or close, by that I mean the higher your adaptive object is in the grid the it would still have to calculate smaller voxels below to maintain the grids integrity up higher in the grid. The distance-wise concept is awesome :)

andybyrne462
05-19-2010, 11:00 PM
Anyone use Mental Ray in production with Fume?

Anyone have some super awesome settings to make it render less painfully with motion blur? I've knocked settings waaaay down and am still looking at 10min + a frame for some shots.

Freakin' Mental Ray....Wishing I had FR

jimmy4d
05-20-2010, 01:46 AM
Hey Andy I don't what comp software you use but in AE, outputing a volocity channel with an rpf. file type you can use ReelSmart Motion Blur, saves alot of rendertime, I never use motion blur in max anymore, and mr is so dog slow. Just an idea mate.

amckay
05-20-2010, 02:07 AM
Reelsmart holds up really well for doing moblur on fume passes, and totally saves on render time
definitely recommend it as well!

Daniel-B
05-20-2010, 02:35 AM
Best fume work I've ever seen...

http://briandemetz.com/_/


Download Reel 3 and you'll see what I mean. :cool:

sixtees
05-20-2010, 05:22 AM
Hmm it's the 20th so it's time for FumeFX 2 isn't it?

Anyone that has more information about it?

cheerioboy
05-20-2010, 01:25 PM
anyone have tips to setting up fume to get sucked through a crevice, similar to air being pulled through a hole in a plane. At the moment I've been playing around with adding wind forces but it doesn't seem to affect only the hole area.

got any ideas?

Glacierise
05-20-2010, 01:46 PM
You can try with particles giving velocity to the smoke/fire.

Glacierise
05-20-2010, 01:58 PM
You run your particles through the grid, you use particle source, assign radius there. But you don't add fuel/smoke/temperature - you disable these channels. You use the 'velocity' parameter - the particles will give their velocity to the contents of grid. The spinner is a multiplier so you can use more or less of the speed in the same direction the particles move at. Try :)

cheerioboy
05-20-2010, 02:01 PM
i knew there was a way to do that! well actually I didn't. I only knew of spawning the fume off the pflow, not how to use the velocity for the pflow.

How does it work exactly? I know you can use the velocity from fume fx for pflow to follow, but not the other way around.

cheerioboy
05-20-2010, 02:28 PM
Interesting, although it looks like it'll take a while to tweak. Using the second FFX source (the pflow particles) with only its radius and velocity does what moving a piece of geometry through the scene would do. So it pushes the fumefx in the direction the particles are going.

At least in my setup its creating turbulence more then directional movement. Still its an interesting concept to experiment further with.

SoLiTuDe
05-20-2010, 02:43 PM
i knew there was a way to do that! well actually I didn't. I only knew of spawning the fume off the pflow, not how to use the velocity for the pflow.

How does it work exactly? I know you can use the velocity from fume fx for pflow to follow, but not the other way around.

It's just another settings on the particle source, you can turn off the other channels.

andybyrne462
05-20-2010, 03:34 PM
Reelsmart holds up really well for doing moblur on fume passes, and totally saves on render time
definitely recommend it as well!

Yeah I hear ya about the realsmart. Dealing with Flame compositing though. Different needs and wants I guess :scream:

andybyrne462
05-20-2010, 03:38 PM
Hey Andy I don't what comp software you use but in AE, outputing a volocity channel with an rpf. file type you can use ReelSmart Motion Blur, saves alot of rendertime, I never use motion blur in max anymore, and mr is so dog slow. Just an idea mate.


Hey Jimmy can you tell me what steps it takes to spit that velocity pass?

I simmed the velocity data. So I have that cached out along with fuel, smoke etc. Is it a render element I need to set up in Max? I see a velocity render element, but it doesn't seem to render anything? hmmm ...never really tried this with fume. heh.

andybyrne462
05-20-2010, 03:53 PM
k, scratch that.

So, you switch in the render tab to channel data and render velocity? and it looks like it just spits out an alpha of your fire/smoke?

andybyrne462
05-20-2010, 04:14 PM
Best fume work I've ever seen...

http://briandemetz.com/_/


Download Reel 3 and you'll see what I mean. :cool:

Demetz is the man. check out www.finallight.com

SoLiTuDe
05-20-2010, 04:49 PM
Hey andy, just going off memory here... If you simmed the velocity out, go to the Fusionworks atmospheric, click create channels, and image motion blur, then exr velocity channel should work (file properties when you go to save your exr)... or something like that. Then you just want to find a velocity motion blur node in your compositor.

Reelsmart has two options I think, one where it actually will use vectors, and another where it guesses all by itself. :)

andybyrne462
05-20-2010, 05:39 PM
Hey andy, just going off memory here... If you simmed the velocity out, go to the Fusionworks atmospheric, click create channels, and image motion blur, then exr velocity channel should work (file properties when you go to save your exr)... or something like that. Then you just want to find a velocity motion blur node in your compositor.

Reelsmart has two options I think, one where it actually will use vectors, and another where it guesses all by itself. :)

Hey Ian,
Great this helped a lot. I was always curious about this, but Always had FR at hand to take care of 3d MB.

So one more question and I think I got the workflow down. So had a question with holdouts now. This workflow is with scanline correct? So are you rendering FumefX_fire and smoke as elements then rendering the velocity pass separate? Or in the velocity pass are you turning off the holdout geo at all? I gues I'm just curious what is set to renderable or matte in the velocity render pass.

Thanks again man! 2d blur is gonna save this damn show

SoLiTuDe
05-20-2010, 06:10 PM
Yeah, this is for scanline, haven't really tried much with vray / etc. You render a normal fume pass by itself, along with the render elements, the velocity pass will be embedded in the exr as an extra channel (have to tell it to do this in the exr settings), otherwise you should be able to pick the velocity render element ... I think anyway. :) Edit: oh yeah the matte geo... good question lol. I would think that you just render as you normally would, but just add the extra channel to the exr.

Daniel-B
05-20-2010, 07:12 PM
I thought the new FumeFX would be announced today? Any word?

sixtees
05-20-2010, 07:35 PM
I thought the new FumeFX would be announced today? Any word?
I thought they would release it today...I'm looking for new information every 30 mins ....can't wait :(

Edit: Yeah here we go:
http://www.afterworks.com/FumeFX/Overview.asp

tasiek
05-20-2010, 09:59 PM
yeap, just check SitniSati homepage :)

kogden
05-20-2010, 10:18 PM
If this helps, it looks like if you become a cg member (paid) you get $100- off the price of fume at turbosquid :)

Looks pretty cool!

Cant wait to use it

andybyrne462
05-20-2010, 11:01 PM
Yeah, this is for scanline, haven't really tried much with vray / etc. You render a normal fume pass by itself, along with the render elements, the velocity pass will be embedded in the exr as an extra channel (have to tell it to do this in the exr settings), otherwise you should be able to pick the velocity render element ... I think anyway. :) Edit: oh yeah the matte geo... good question lol. I would think that you just render as you normally would, but just add the extra channel to the exr.

So just a heads up Ian. It's working well now. In Nuke use a Vectorblur, pipe the velocity pass into it via alpha or rgba etc and tweak. Then I'm also dropping down an edge blur and piping in the same pass. Done deal. Works great...well, atleast it'll work as long as I say it's 3d motion blur ;)

renaissance01
05-20-2010, 11:31 PM
Hey Andy,
The way Ian provided would be the best way to go...although I know fumefx 2.0 has a Velocity Channel added to the Fusionworks Render Elements so you don't have to embed the channel in an exr if you don't want to.

andybyrne462
05-20-2010, 11:44 PM
yeah, I'm using 2.0
and realized you don't even need the render element now. Rendering the separate velocity channel works fine for this.

jimmy4d
05-21-2010, 01:31 AM
Hey Andy,

I use a rpf file type, works well with comp programs, you can pic your breakdown. But the meathod ian has I want to do now......

andybyrne462
05-21-2010, 01:45 AM
yep,
Gave it a go the rpf way, but Nuke doesn't have an rpf. importer.

So the exr way, is the way to go at this point.

SoLiTuDe
05-21-2010, 02:20 AM
Hey Andy,

I use a rpf file type, works well with comp programs, you can pic your breakdown. But the meathod ian has I want to do now......

Yeah, exr has the same, but even more with 2011 or the 2010 connectivity extension... you can embed any render element as a channel in addition to the standard zdepth/normal/uv/velocity/etc passes. This works especially well with nuke's exr support.

PsychoSilence
05-21-2010, 02:23 AM
Does anyone know if the rediculously annoying vray render bug is fixes in 2.0 where you loose all your shading every now and then in 64 bit and you have to switch to scanliner and back to vray or switch the shadow type and back to fix it? Because that is driving me up the friggin wall...

kind regards,
Anselm

jdrouse
05-21-2010, 02:25 AM
New EXR exporter with Elements & Channels integrated is fantastic. Especially with Nuke. I'm pretty sure this format is going to be around forever. Only better with time. RPF is dead.

jimmy4d
05-21-2010, 11:59 AM
ok...thanks man,.... sounds hip to me..well then I better get going, I don't use nuke, (guess I better learn) but real quick, does Fusion and AE have EXR file import too???. (I'm not at my workstation today).


googled it.........yes they both do.........cool...... :beer:

Glacierise
05-21-2010, 12:35 PM
Cheers to FFX2! Drink up to the coming awesomeness! :beer: Wavelet is way cool btw ;)

Steve Green
05-21-2010, 02:14 PM
I can understand Afterworks wanting to concentrate on FFX since it is a popular plugin, but I'd dearly love to see Dreamscape getting some attention now this is out the door...

Glacierise
05-21-2010, 03:06 PM
Vue pretty much grabbed the prize there. It looks to me like a battle lost for Dreamscape. Fume is a different story though :)

naik
05-21-2010, 03:06 PM
ok...thanks man,.... sounds hip to me..well then I better get going, I don't use nuke, (guess I better learn) but real quick, does Fusion and AE have EXR file import too???. (I'm not at my workstation today).

Fusion can definately load EXRs but its not comparable with Nukes workflow.
But there are scripts where you can split your channels out - tested it last week.

On the other hand, Fusion and RPF files are amazing.
The Workflow in Fusion with that format is a real life saver + Object ID + Material ID.
Almost every tool in Fusion react and interact with that meta information.

cheers

naik

Steve Green
05-21-2010, 03:14 PM
Vue pretty much grabbed the prize there. It looks to me like a battle lost for Dreamscape. Fume is a different story though :)

Depends what you use it for really - I haven't seen that much in Vue for oceans.

I think if they concentrated on improving that area it's still got mileage in it.

amckay
05-21-2010, 03:50 PM
steve green the ocean king himself :)

actually max is about to start getting some serious attention when it comes to water in a few different solutions, so I think there won't be a shortage of ways to make water very soon

Steve Green
05-21-2010, 03:59 PM
Hah, where's my trident... :)

I haven't had to do much recently, but a zombie job involving oceans reared its head recently.

So it got me thinking...

Definitely have to upgrade FFX this weekend - the wavelet and void features look particularly useful for me...

SoLiTuDe
05-21-2010, 04:13 PM
On the other hand, Fusion and RPF files are amazing.
The Workflow in Fusion with that format is a real life saver + Object ID + Material ID.
Almost every tool in Fusion react and interact with that meta information.

naik

That works with EXRs as well...

naik
05-21-2010, 05:04 PM
Really??

How mate?
Do mean you can take a loader (exr image ) and then pipe in a color corrector
and use the Material ID / Object ID function inside the tool?



cheers

NAIK

naik
05-21-2010, 05:18 PM
okay i did a test and it worked.
Really strange, i was so sure that it only works with rpf
unless you use a channelboolean...

nevertheless, thanks for the hint...

ThallDesign
05-21-2010, 06:09 PM
...a zombie job involving oceans reared its head recently...

Do you need to be vague because of an NDA, or was it Survival of the Dead?

cheerioboy
05-21-2010, 08:39 PM
Is it possible to set the smoke to never dissipate? I want to fill a volume with smoke that swirls around

cheerioboy
05-21-2010, 09:01 PM
I think I caught it, smoke min dens is set to '0', and then the blocking sides are set to 'both' for all axis.

cheers.

ABDVFX
05-22-2010, 03:59 PM
EDIT......

Strob
05-22-2010, 07:40 PM
About EXR in layers, I tried it one time, trying to put like a dozen layers of different elements, it brought after effect to its knee when trying to playback the sequence... I also needed to paint on some frame and it was a pain in the ass to find a way to open those layered EXR in photoshop for painting. So from that time I prefer to output every element on its own layer. Anyway I think that layered EXR is better for huge facility where data management is a major headache. For my part I'm just a one guy studio so I only manage a few terbytes by project. Layered EXR just bring problems for me. I do use EXR for sure but no layers.

And about motion blur, I noticed that reelsmart has been greatly improved since a few years, it does not have problem anymore with stuff coming in frame. In fact all my projects since a year use only reelsmart, I could not find a single shot where rendered MB or velocity pass MB was better than reelsmart MB.

HeadSmell
05-23-2010, 02:51 AM
Layered EXRs are fantastic, the problem is Adobe products aren't giving alot of support for it. To really take advantage you need to be using a composting program supported for channels. I've been using Nuke with layered exrs the last few years and wouldn't have it any other way. Especially very fast when you have a dozen multimatte elements, grading ,masking and shuffling alphas are ridiculy easy any where in the comp tree. but yea like you said, if it's just you doing everything, no need to try and force something that doent suit your workflow.

bariscan90
05-23-2010, 06:28 PM
Hey,newbie here =)

http://www.vimeo.com/user849027

You guys can watch my all FumeFx Works here...

Please comment,criticize :)

bariscan90
05-23-2010, 08:24 PM
Also my youtube channel here,you can watch it there too...

http://www.youtube.com/user/bariscan90

JohnnyRandom
05-24-2010, 07:47 PM
mmmmnnn wavelet turbulence mmmmnnnn


@baris, cool stuff :)

Dreamie
05-24-2010, 08:22 PM
Speaking of fume, exr and reelsmart motion blur.... I recall in fusion a while back I had to normalize the velocity values in Fusion using a "custom tool" in order to make the vector blur works correctly since the velocity values in the exr are float values. .

I don't remember exactly but basically it was taking the red and green channel putting in each velocity x and velocity y, dividing by 100-150, adding a small value and multiplying the result with the alpha. That gave interesting results not only for vector motion blur but also to lighting touch ups. .

Darknon
05-26-2010, 02:18 PM
This is one of the best simulations I've seen yet (a dude from this forum I think)

Just can't stop watching it
http://www.youtube.com/user/brandoncyoung#p/a/u/1/dwIq68svGnA

ThallDesign
05-26-2010, 02:50 PM
This is one of the best simulations I've seen yet (a dude from this forum I think)

Just can't stop watching it
http://www.youtube.com/user/brandoncyoung#p/a/u/1/dwIq68svGnA

Yeah I hate that guy. His simulations are fantastic. Really makes me jealous.

bariscan90
05-26-2010, 02:56 PM
mmmmnnn wavelet turbulence mmmmnnnn


@baris, cool stuff :)


XD Thanks Johny Random

jimmy4d
05-28-2010, 12:09 PM
Hmmm seem to be having some bugs with fume2 when I change my sim grid size fume pops up up this error that my grid does not match my sim and wants me to match grid to current sim, there are some other errors I keep getting about my defalt output files, its say I have chosen to change to default output path.....but I did not. I set up all my Simms data in one place.....weird I will play with a bit more.

Glacierise
05-28-2010, 12:48 PM
That's not an error, that's FFX telling you the resolution of the cache is different then the resolution of the grid you want to load it in. FFX1 was giving you that warning too. Don't know about the default folders :) Try using the ato synchronize option maybe?

JohnnyRandom
05-28-2010, 03:57 PM
About the popup dialogs, Kresimir just released Fume 2.0a that fixes some of the warning dialogs that were found to be unnecessary/annoying.

rebolt
05-29-2010, 06:22 PM
Here's the reference which i am following to create a smoke trail which comes out of jet. But its getting hard for me to get this type of look cause of the detailed and small curls inside smoke, although as i increase the vorticity and also slightly increase the velocity damping the smoke is not expanding so much and because of that its not creating much of detail inside smoke. Is this type of smoke possible to create in Fumefx or should i use something else ?

http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/6726/smoketrailref.jpg

fiveoften
05-30-2010, 10:57 AM
i think yes. with a script.

http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?f=183&t=872074

SoLiTuDe
06-01-2010, 04:43 AM
Here's the reference which i am following to create a smoke trail which comes out of jet. But its getting hard for me to get this type of look cause of the detailed and small curls inside smoke, although as i increase the vorticity and also slightly increase the velocity damping the smoke is not expanding so much and because of that its not creating much of detail inside smoke. Is this type of smoke possible to create in Fumefx or should i use something else ?




Try lowering the advection stride quite a bit as well... it'll also increase swirlyness, which will hopefully reduce your need for the velocity damping

Mills
06-01-2010, 08:44 AM
Used Fume FX in a different way for this project.
http://www.behance.net/Gallery/Animax_Channel-IDBranding/527780
http://behance.vo.llnwd.net/profiles/84864/projects/527780/848641275296613.jpghttp://behance.vo.llnwd.net/profiles/84864/projects/527780/848641275296679.jpghttp://behance.vo.llnwd.net/profiles/84864/projects/527780/848641275296926.jpghttp://behance.vo.llnwd.net/profiles/84864/projects/527780/848641275296768.jpg

Darknon
06-01-2010, 09:33 AM
That is awesome!

grury
06-01-2010, 09:35 AM
Used Fume FX in a different way for this project.
http://www.behance.net/Gallery/Animax_Channel-IDBranding/527780


Very cool stuff, congratulations.

fireknght2
06-01-2010, 03:33 PM
What a unique way to use Fume. Did I see some stereoscopic added in to give a 3D view effect. I put on my 3D glasses from IMAX and seem to allow the cubes to leap out at me.

Glacierise
06-01-2010, 03:37 PM
Great stuff indeed!

Mills
06-01-2010, 03:41 PM
Thanks
Hahah no............ there's no stereoscopics, its just a "design element" or whatever you wanna call it :)
E

JohnnyRandom
06-01-2010, 04:32 PM
Nice work Mills :) Thanks for sharing

Thanks
Hahah no............ there's no stereoscopics, its just a "design element" or whatever you wanna call it :)
E

lol i tried the same the same thing, i kinda works, the separation is off but there is some effect, might be something cool to do in spare time, it is a perfect spot for stereoscopic :D

ruchitinfushion
06-01-2010, 06:09 PM
Anybody ever try Tyre BurnOut Fx..If any tutorial ,,then it will be great.

ruchitinfushion
06-01-2010, 06:17 PM
This test is awesome
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDqdIHGum8E

jimmy4d
06-01-2010, 08:23 PM
I did one a while ago,.... I could give you the max max file, I have no tut on this.

If you like and want it PM me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DK7jRFGuwMU

amckay
06-02-2010, 09:20 PM
Great work Jimmy looking good!

jimmy4d
06-03-2010, 02:35 AM
Thanks Allan......... i still want to add a crazy little smart car to that..haha

PexElroy
06-03-2010, 10:15 AM
Looking good Jimmy ;)

Enkido
06-03-2010, 09:37 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLp3gh2ldlo
Need some advice to get a better nuke ;)

tool2heal
06-03-2010, 10:18 PM
Well since someone else just pm'ed me and asked for the scene file I might aswell post it here for everyone.

Here's the scene file for my Nuke from the fxwars contest last month.
it's all done with fumefx.
3 containers, 2 pflow systems and one legacy system.
it certainly wasn't the best entry, (it got 0 votes, lol)
but since it was all fumefx, I figure why not post it in here
for others to reverse engineer and the such.

there's many other ways to go about doing nukes, and many new look's i have come up with
since then, but here was what my scene was for the contest. the skydome and ground textures are missing which are useless for the file anyways.

have fun.
http://www.mediafire.com/file/jt0jfbbgebz/Nuke_final.max
max 2009 file.

DeKo-LT
06-03-2010, 11:56 PM
Ok, let's start nuclear disarmament,
here is my max2009 scene (fumefx 1.2):
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4019/4601989333_b5ff9a5e0d_m.jpg
http://lab.deko.lt/fxwarsnuke

anyone more? :)

amckay
06-03-2010, 11:58 PM
I would animate your time scale to ramp down over time, and also in return ramp up your expansion. The buoyancy should probably initially be a bit lower too so it doesn't rise as fast.
It's definitely a good start, I would probably make your area that you're emitting from a bit larger too to get a bigger base.

Give that a shot and then we can expand on it from that point.

Nice stuff Enkido

fiveoften
06-04-2010, 08:25 AM
both nukes looks very awsome and different. i like tool2heal nuke. he have the good old classic look. ^^

but i have a problem with the file. for the fumefx container FumeFX_smoke_stalk i dont find any particles. have any idea which i use or i must make new one?^^

tool2heal
06-04-2010, 09:52 AM
Hmm, yea. sorry. I see that now.
Im a horribly unorganized person.
of the 50 scene files i had in that folder that was seemed like it was the final scene file.
but it was not, hence the missing pflow system.

since I can't find the scene now I will quickly explain the process, and link to a smoke stalk scene file.

the process was basically to birth particles off of a large tube with a close inner and outer radius.
think like a ring. theres then a find target operator placed in the middle. to obtain the "sucking" motion.
when the particles get to the target. they are then passed to the second event where they are attracted to another find target that was animated to stay inside the middle of the torus you see in the scene i uploaded. that was the main concept. I also tried other concepts using geometry and the lock bond operator.

So here's the file that uses the geometry method with lock'bond operator.
And another file I threw together quickly to demonstrate a very basic setup of what can also be used
Note: i used a geometry based solution with the lock'n'bond operator, but not knowing if you have any particle flow box i will upload both to look at.

Sorry about that. if I find the complete file laying around i will post it.

http://www.mediafire.com/file/tywmzb3ymdn/smokeshaft_geometry.max
http://www.mediafire.com/file/w2mn5lmwwyz/smokeshaft_basic.max