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 24

FlorinMocanu
07-21-2011, 10:06 AM
I second the question about the unclamped gbuffer, what's the solution there?

QuakeFX
07-21-2011, 10:14 AM
Thanks a lot for taking your time to explain it, joconnell. I'm definitely gonna give it a try either today or tomorrow. I'll make sure to share the end result. :)

depleteD
07-22-2011, 10:14 PM
@FlorinMocanu yo in the fusion works renerer enabled non clamped color in the image channels.

In your exr settings, add non clamped color. There is a bug and it wont work when u ahve matte
geometry in the scene i think.

Good luck


-Andrew

FlorinMocanu
07-23-2011, 12:32 AM
Thanks Andrew. Surely will come in handy your tip for my FXWars entry...

Darknon
07-23-2011, 08:14 AM
Hi guys

I just finished this little fx shot. Fume fx used for the dust. More info in the youtube description. Tell me what you think :-)

Enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6IOYrBAOpA&feature=youtube_gdata_player

---

fireknght2
07-23-2011, 05:53 PM
Hi guys

I just finished this little fx shot. Fume fx used for the dust. More info in the youtube description. Tell me what you think :-)

Enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6IOYrBAOpA&feature=youtube_gdata_player

---

Pretty cool FX nice touch using Fume FX

Rich

FlorinMocanu
07-24-2011, 11:50 AM
Hi guys

I just finished this little fx shot. Fume fx used for the dust. More info in the youtube description. Tell me what you think :-)

Enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6IOYrBAOpA&feature=youtube_gdata_player

---

Cool work :)

Here's a flamethrower test i made while working out the FX for my FXWars team entry...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyDb3Qm_Zh4

FabianB
07-26-2011, 02:40 AM
Hey guys,
here is another one. Took a while to figure that out. :)

http://www.vimeo.com/26894923

cheers,
Fabian

JohnnyRandom
07-26-2011, 04:12 AM
Hey Fabian A+

Well hell, here you guys go, have fun: :)

http://4rand.com/scripts/FFXBBQ/FFXBBQ.png (http://4rand.com/stuff/script-ffxbbq/)

adom86
07-26-2011, 04:06 PM
Ahh that looks very useful John... gonna give it a run out :D

circusboy
07-27-2011, 03:03 PM
Hey guys,
here is another one. Took a while to figure that out. :)

http://www.vimeo.com/26894923

cheers,
Fabian
Its really kewl-it resembles strands from XSI/ICE. But is there any fume fx in it? :surprised

FabianB
07-27-2011, 06:23 PM
Its really kewl-it resembles strands from XSI/ICE. But is there any fume fx in it? :surprised

What?? This is the fumefx thread?? Sorry! :)
No seriously, fumefx is the key to the setup! There might be another way, but I don't think it would look that great. The technique is not THAT complicated, but pretty hard to figure out. :)

joconnell
07-29-2011, 10:52 AM
I presume the audio track is being tied to your velocity multiplier to get the pulsing? I wish max had a slightly better audio controller though - the regions / frequencies in trapcode sound keys are really powerful. Nice look!

JohnnyRandom
07-29-2011, 06:04 PM
...I wish max had a slightly better audio controller though - the regions / frequencies in trapcode sound keys are really powerful...

I wish it had WAY better sound control :) I have been dabbling with that on and off for years, trying to get a pflow system to behave like Sound Keys. All you can do is magnitude (volume) and nothing else, there is no way to grab frequency ranges that I know of.

FabianB
07-29-2011, 06:19 PM
Yeah! The audio controller isn't that great, besides from not giving you much control it also has some annyoing bugs! For example if you use one wav to test your setup and want to replace it later, you can't! You have to assign another audio controller or it won't update the range correctly and you will lose the values you've already set. Not a big deal if you have just one controller assigned but with 10 it can get pretty annoying. :) The only way to use it like soundkeys is to manually prepare your audiofiles in another program.

@John
Best Fume script ever, I use it all the time now. Thank you for sharing it!

olipoli1
08-01-2011, 09:37 PM
I have put together a portfolio site finally! It took a while but now its here: http://oliverauguszt.com/

There are a lot of (fume)FX related stuff there I hope you will find something interesting.

Thanks!

O

fiveoften
08-05-2011, 12:04 AM
Your site looks cool. I see your reel and i like it so much. I think its not the best music choice but its ok. Some of your r&d tests are awesome and i hope we see some tutorials in the future :-).

One question. In your reel are scenes with collapsing castle. From which movie are this scenes?

olipoli1
08-05-2011, 09:03 AM
Thanks so much for the comment! I hope to do some making of about some of the fx stuff, I think mainly about the box2 setups.

The collapsing castles are from BBC 1's Robin Hood TV series. It was shot in Hungary and we done the post production here as well.

PexElroy
08-07-2011, 01:10 AM
Ion-Fusion Bomb (http://www.areagrey.com/other/fw69.html) :twisted:

Mafx
08-14-2011, 10:07 AM
Hey all,

Just wanted to check from the pro's what you do about real world sizing for objects in Fume. I have a large concrete railway bridge I created in Max and for the sake of testing I want to blow out one of the legs. I modelled the bridge in generic units but it is all 1:1 for any real metre measurement. So for a fume container, should I turn the scene measurements into metres and scale the bridge up so it matches real world scale and then make a big container? or if you guys are for example blowing up a bridge or a train or something do you work on a scale of real world to .5 or similar, so basically halve everything. Just not sure how to handle a container size when potentially the area would be quite large. If you make the container smaller then to give the illusion of a larger scale explosion is it then just a matter of tweaking the spacing and the turb scale etc?

Would love to hear a broad sweep of the workflow for this sort of thing.

Cheers

S.

jimmy4d
08-16-2011, 02:40 AM
Ion-Fusion Bomb (http://www.areagrey.com/other/fw69.html) :twisted:



wow...fricking sweet dude...........

floopyb
08-16-2011, 09:00 AM
Hey all,

Just wanted to check from the pro's what you do about real world sizing for objects in Fume. I have a large concrete railway bridge I created in Max and for the sake of testing I want to blow out one of the legs. I modelled the bridge in generic units but it is all 1:1 for any real metre measurement. So for a fume container, should I turn the scene measurements into metres and scale the bridge up so it matches real world scale and then make a big container? or if you guys are for example blowing up a bridge or a train or something do you work on a scale of real world to .5 or similar, so basically halve everything. Just not sure how to handle a container size when potentially the area would be quite large. If you make the container smaller then to give the illusion of a larger scale explosion is it then just a matter of tweaking the spacing and the turb scale etc?

Would love to hear a broad sweep of the workflow for this sort of thing.

Cheers

S.

I tend to work in real world scene scales, mainly because thats just how things are done in production. Saying that you shouldnt have any trouble tweaking your grid to get the right feeling of scale. Turbulence, Advection Stride and Time Scale should get you most of the way with changing the look and feel of the scale.

Mafx
08-16-2011, 12:18 PM
Thanks Jordan. I am just having an issue with the size as my grid is coming up at like 1600 cubed to get everything in that I need and to introduce a level of detail the sim is just insane.

I'll keep tweaking the settings and see how far I get with it.

Cheers

S.

circusboy
08-16-2011, 01:50 PM
Ion-Fusion Bomb (http://www.areagrey.com/other/fw69.html) :twisted:
The plume looks great. I think the timing of the debris is a bit off. It anticipates the bulk of the explosion too much and almost looks almost unrelated. I think the debris gets too high as well-should out spread wider and not so tall. Smoke trails on some of the debris might help connect it as well. Here is a real world reference (it wasn't cg) that I've always liked:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTuVem1SPiE

circusboy
08-16-2011, 02:01 PM
Thanks Jordan. I am just having an issue with the size as my grid is coming up at like 1600 cubed to get everything in that I need and to introduce a level of detail the sim is just insane.

I'll keep tweaking the settings and see how far I get with it.

Cheers

S.
If it gets too much for your machine (how much RAM do you have?) maybe several smaller layered fume boxes will give you both more variety and detail without the pain.
Also note you can use the undocumented 'systemscale' via maxscript to adjust the scale Fumefx 'thinks' its working at. Do some searches on this thread on how to use it.

Also performing Wavelet sim can give you more detail which might also change the 'look' of the scale.

Barring that you can also work in a multiple scale (say a 10 times smaller scene, camera, everything) import just the fumebox into the production scene (with correct and) scale the simulated result up by 10 times just for the rendering (just don't re-sim it in the render scene). Thats more of a hack-but doable too.

Mafx
08-16-2011, 10:21 PM
Yeh I wasn't sure if I should link everything to a dummy or something and scale it all down and do the sim. I will try out some of your suggestions also and the different boxes and the like.

Thanks for the info.

S.

PexElroy
08-17-2011, 04:46 PM
Thanks for feedback :) plan to revisit later with Krakatoa.

chrispy2001
08-18-2011, 05:30 PM
Hey I'm totally one of those had to learn to use max because fume (and other max plugins) are so awesome guys:

I need to render a front and back clipping plane for a swirly effect to give to the comp guys.

I've set the clipping plane values on the camera to cut the fluid box in half and it is showing in my viewport, however when i render the frame I get the whole fluid box.

Is there a check box somewhere I'm missing or some setting I haven't set?

Got figure this one out otherwise the compositors are going to break my knee caps!

Glacierise
08-18-2011, 06:11 PM
I don't think the clipping planes work with volumes, you're pretty out of luck I think. Only way I know to do that is with Krakatoa...

gm7
08-20-2011, 02:29 AM
Why my render is like that (low quality) if the steps is 1 in fumefx render tab and lighting too...

anybody know?

please see in real size...
http://img535.imageshack.us/img535/928/zzzkw.th.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/535/zzzkw.jpg/)

JonathanFreisler
08-20-2011, 08:15 AM
Have you guys seen this yet?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebCawfEnSWU&feature=feedf

What do y'all think? Fume/Phoenix, Houdini? Some other proprietary solver?

Glacierise
08-20-2011, 02:08 PM
Could be any of these, Maya fluids too. Just a first trailer, so a lot of the shots are WIPs as it's common these days. Highly humorous though :D

JohnnyRandom
08-20-2011, 06:04 PM
Ghost Rider Returns!:buttrock:

gm7
08-20-2011, 06:35 PM
anybody can help?

JohnnyRandom
08-20-2011, 07:30 PM
Why my render is like that (low quality)
anybody can help?

Why is it like "what"?

What do you see wrong with it? and what is "it" supposed to look like?

You are not very clear in what you ask.

circusboy
08-23-2011, 04:38 PM
Could be any of these, Maya fluids too. Just a first trailer, so a lot of the shots are WIPs as it's common these days. Highly humorous though :D
The original was Houdini defined emission controls but driving Maya Fluids. I never got around to seeing it-but those trailers had everything at night.

Interesting they went to a lot of daytime stuff this time. Thats gotta add to the difficulty.
As to what they used-anyone know who is doing the VFX?

quickslvr
08-25-2011, 08:05 AM
i think iloura is doing some vfx..
http://www.iloura.com/film.php...

floopyb
08-28-2011, 03:02 AM
i think iloura is doing some vfx..
http://www.iloura.com/film.php...

Yeah, we have been doing the majority of the FX work on it. All FumeFX and Vray. :)
We've been having a hell of a time on it :D (sorry about that! I had to say it)
http://db.msn-beta.com/big_emoticons/misc/flaming.gif

JohnnyRandom
08-28-2011, 04:58 AM
If any of those are your shots, nice work :)

JonathanFreisler
08-28-2011, 05:05 AM
Ha, yeah sorry about the baited question. A bunch of us fume/pflow/tp forum regulars are working on the job. Pretty cool, I was hoping for more of a response from you guys though ha ha :P

CapitanRed
08-28-2011, 09:22 AM
yeah, the closeup fire in the beginning is really nice! love that!

HeadSmell
08-28-2011, 09:49 AM
Yeah, we have been doing the majority of the FX work on it. All FumeFX and Vray. :)


and only possible because of your awesome tools and scripts! :beer:

PexElroy
09-01-2011, 05:40 PM
Yea was thinkin' it could of been Maya or FumeFX :)

The fire motion looks greatly improved over the first film and overall it looks more connected to his body and head with the wind at his face. overall it looks good for cool eye candy. the fire has a surreal feel to it, it's not quite real, as the fuel source is imaginary. Acts like hellfire, it is not of this earth (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yK03R5hr9Kk). :twisted:

mclawest
09-02-2011, 11:10 AM
Have you guys seen this yet?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebCawfEnSWU&feature=feedf

What do y'all think? Fume/Phoenix, Houdini? Some other proprietary solver?

from my Cinefex: for first film the Sony Imageworks builded a fire pipeline based on Houdini (maya was tested but not approved as a final tool). Average time to get the final flexible tool was 6 month.
So maybe it is the same engine here, who knows...

JonathanFreisler
09-02-2011, 03:36 PM
So maybe it is the same engine here, who knows...

Ah, nah WE KNOW. We can safely confirm the entire film is being done in Fume (as jordo said before. Fume, max, vray). AFAIK its most likely the largest use of fume in a feature film...

PexElroy
09-02-2011, 04:13 PM
that is awesome it's Fume ;)

silwerfeldt
09-05-2011, 08:43 AM
We are rendering a 3D feature with 3Delight in Maya and I am doing alot of VFX in 3dsMax and FumeFX. I export the scenes from Maya using FBX and everything seems to match up good.

I render the FumeFX with everything else in the scenes as a matte cut-hole using Fr-Matte.

When I comp it in Nuke I see that the alpha donī+t match up 100% and I get white borders (see around the pole!).

Have anybody a good "pipeline" to match FumeFX and Final Render with a Renderman/3Delight Maya renders? The second problem will be that they are rendering with 3D motion blur...

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-xKkOPvp6BhU/TmR9DbqjFRI/AAAAAAAAAUI/2FMHJK64KjU/s720/FumeFxTest.jpg

floopyb
09-07-2011, 12:16 AM
Have anybody a good "pipeline" to match FumeFX and Final Render with a Renderman/3Delight Maya renders? The second problem will be that they are rendering with 3D motion blur...


Its could be a sampling/anti-aliasing issue. Not sure about that one... maybe displacement/ mesh smooth differences??

As far as the motion blur goes I found Vray gives you correct 3D camera motion blur. I couldnt get final render to give proper motion blur, it would seem to get the motion from the geometry behind it even which means you could get acceptable results but it was in no way correct. I believe the matte geo would motion blur properly in both vray and final render.
You will get no object motion blur though, so if you need that you will have to save the velocity channel while simming and render out a velocity render element and do the object bluring in post.

silwerfeldt
09-07-2011, 07:15 AM
Its could be a sampling/anti-aliasing issue. Not sure about that one... maybe displacement/ mesh smooth differences??.

Thanks after some more trial and error I got it to work with adding more smooth and adjusting the anti-aliasing. Iīll look more into the motion blur. I always thought that Final render could do a correct camera motion blur and not Vray on FumeFX....

Cheers

floopyb
09-07-2011, 07:20 AM
. I always thought that Final render could do a correct camera motion blur and not Vray on FumeFX....

Cheers

Me too, but when i did tests i found vray to be much better. Krakatoa is the best for motion blur, but there are lots of reasons not to use it as a replacement.

silwerfeldt
09-07-2011, 08:56 AM
Another question about the Maya to Max (for FumeFX and other effects).

I export my animatded objects from maya as 1 object and point cache them to fbx.
Import in Max and everyhing seems to work fine..

Except for when I for example want to link a Pflow to some selected polys. It doesnīt link to the polys (I have also tried to detach as clone the edit polys) it just stays on the same spot.

What should i do to make this work?

Sorry if this is obvious but this is my first Maya to Max job...

Cheers
Daniel

floopyb
09-07-2011, 09:13 AM
Another question about the Maya to Max (for FumeFX and other effects).

I export my animatded objects from maya as 1 object and point cache them to fbx.
Import in Max and everyhing seems to work fine..

Except for when I for example want to link a Pflow to some selected polys. It doesnīt link to the polys (I have also tried to detach as clone the edit polys) it just stays on the same spot.

What should i do to make this work?

Sorry if this is obvious but this is my first Maya to Max job...

Cheers
Daniel

Probably good idea to put this in another thread, but just quickly.. .are you linking just to the object? if so you will find that that means you are linking to the transform of the node, not the animation of the faces/ points. You will want to use the attachment controller to get a node to follow the animation of a face. Can be pretty slow for pflows attached to point cached mesh, so you may want to make sure you collapse thecontroller to keyframes.

silwerfeldt
09-07-2011, 09:38 AM
Probably good idea to put this in another thread, but just quickly.. .are you linking just to the object? if so you will find that that means you are linking to the transform of the node, not the animation of the faces/ points. You will want to use the attachment controller to get a node to follow the animation of a face. Can be pretty slow for pflows attached to point cached mesh, so you may want to make sure you collapse thecontroller to keyframes.

Sorry for the off-topic!
Super thanks alot for your quick answers.

circusboy
09-07-2011, 02:28 PM
I go from Softimage to Max all the time. But I tend to use Point Oven deformations driving .obj objects. And i import the objects as *seperate* (we have inhouse tools that make this very easy). I haven't tried via FBX-but I suspect this may be a more direct application as in my case the objects work perfectly as expected. No cludgy transform linking.
So I suspect the 'all-as-one-object' is a mistake.

As for the motion blur -we'd love a awsome solution as well (we use 3delight in Softimage for everything else). Velocity data blured in Nuke would probably your best bet.
But its interesting vray has such good blur matching. I would love to have vray here. If anyone feels like posting a still of their results (PM me if you'd like) I'd love to see an vray/3delight comped combo with extreme motion blur.

gandhics
09-09-2011, 07:25 AM
I have a sim cache and want to use it multiple times with time offset. I wrote a script to automate so I can distribute 500 grid with time offset.

Now I want to consolate them as a 10 grid with out re-sim.

Is there any way to combine fume cache?

circusboy
09-09-2011, 01:35 PM
Not sure I understand. Its very easy to have multiple boxes read the same cache file.
Then just use the start fame (and even the play from ) to offset the cache read.
The secrete is to have one fumebox that does the sim and have it sim more than you need.
So for a 300 frame shot maybe sim for 600 (or in your case maybe even 1000 frames) so you have lots of offset variation possibilities.

But this seems obvious-so I am not really sure what you are asking...

kogden
09-10-2011, 05:54 PM
Nope :( There isn't a way (as far as i am aware) to combine fume containers :( Maybe you could throw a feature request at kresmir (afterworks) and he'll probably add it to the wish list...

Also, another thing, you might have issues rendering 500 grids.... mainly because of the shadow generation and multi-scatter each one generates, so id guess you'll have to render multiple pass's anyway. Currently I'm working on a shot with 36 of the same grid doing what you are describing, same sim, offset timing, Doing this I have found that just loading the cache alone quadruples my render times :surprised, and its only fire (no shadow or multi-scatter).

Good Luck!

Kieran

Aboubakr
09-11-2011, 12:52 PM
hi guys i put this video on youtube to share it, a good reference of an explosion ^^ with multiple view and slow motion ^^

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eH9JtjKXFMg

takhachhe
09-18-2011, 07:54 AM
Hey

I m trying some stuff plz help me with it. the smoke has some motion downwards and it collide with the ground now after collide it should slow down and start rising upwards slowly. I used temperature buoyancy to give its motion downward using gravity vector . Is there any way to control these thing using temperature dissipation and so on...

Glacierise
09-18-2011, 10:29 AM
You can use the separate smoke buoyancy and temperature buyancy to do these things. So if you have high density smoke emitted, low temperature and strong negative smoke buoyancy it will drop, and if you have a temp emitter on the ground and some temp buoyancy it will start rising when it gets to it. Adding smoke dissipation will reduce the effect of smoke buoyancy over time, the same with temp dissipation.

takhachhe
09-19-2011, 08:59 AM
Thankx Hristo.

I m using gravity vector for downward direction. and all my some is moving downwards, but after it collide with solid it starts to float on surface .but doesnt rise upward.... and I want to slow fluid motion after it collide with ground and also rise upward,

I can see the result for smoke dissipation but I m not being able to handle temperature dissipation.. I use it but doesnot see any effect.. even I used big number in temperature dissipation and dissipation strength . hey give me some idea how to see result?

Glacierise
09-19-2011, 03:21 PM
First make it rise by emitting temperature from the ground and increasing temperature buoyancy. Then you need to take care for the temp dissipation. Make the min temp dissipation 999, so it's definitely gonna dissipate - it doesn't if the temp is above that threshold.

Daniel-B
09-20-2011, 12:09 AM
Hi all. Do any of you have tips for avoiding the "tendril" look to fluid sims? Especially during a high detail explosion or smoke sim? I need some low vorticity and turbulence to make the fluid move like I want, but it creates wispy details like ink being dropped in water. Anyone know how to get sufficent detail and movement without getting these unrealistic ink twirls in the fluid?

floopyb
09-20-2011, 12:24 AM
Hi all. Do any of you have tips for avoiding the "tendril" look to fluid sims? Especially during a high detail explosion or smoke sim? I need some low vorticity and turbulence to make the fluid move like I want, but it creates wispy details like ink being dropped in water. Anyone know how to get sufficent detail and movement without getting these unrealistic ink twirls in the fluid?

I fear you will have to drop your turbulence level, or turn it off completely (Maybe animate it off after the initial explosion). Turbulence introduces that fake looking noise feel which kills your smoke. You may want to look at playing with your advection stride/vorticity balance to get the detail back you lose with turbulence turned off. That should give you a more natural smoke feel

sasmitr
09-20-2011, 03:00 AM
Hi,

Can anyone help me out with how can I simulate a particle flow specific event without having the pflow-aburn node.

Regards.

Daniel-B
09-20-2011, 08:43 AM
I fear you will have to drop your turbulence level, or turn it off completely (Maybe animate it off after the initial explosion). Turbulence introduces that fake looking noise feel which kills your smoke. You may want to look at playing with your advection stride/vorticity balance to get the detail back you lose with turbulence turned off. That should give you a more natural smoke feel


Thanks for that! It helped greatly. The motion I have is much more natural. I would like to post another question if I may...

How does one get a rapid expansion for an explosion. A lot of tutorials I see out there have a nice looking explosion, but they always start off slow, and continue moving slowly. If you take a car bomb for example, the explosion would reach full size in about 5 frames, but then move upward slowly from that. How would you guys recommend approaching this? I am currently using particle systems as emitters, but I've heard of others using rapidly scaling geometry. What are the thoughts on this?

Glacierise
09-20-2011, 09:07 AM
You can start by animating the timescale so it's high in the begining and then it ramps down.

circusboy
09-20-2011, 03:28 PM
Animate object emitters (maybe emitting particles) and time scale are probably your only real fume options. I suppose a re-time could help too.

But if you still can't get the impact factor you want *and* you can get away with it (i.e. your camera is not moving) its amazing what skipping a few rendered frames can do! Tiny point of light one frame, full plume the next. Its pretty much impossible to get a fume sim to behave the same way-but it really works well if your circumstances allow.

Daniel-B
09-20-2011, 03:43 PM
You can start by animating the timescale so it's high in the begining and then it ramps down.

I've already done this, and it's still not moving fast enough. I have it ramping from a time scale of 3.0 down to 1.1. Perhaps I can raise it even higher than 3.

But if you still can't get the impact factor you want *and* you can get away with it (i.e. your camera is not moving) its amazing what skipping a few rendered frames can do!

I'm really starting to think this is my only option. Luckily on this shot, the camera is moving just slow enough I can get away with it.

DanFX
09-21-2011, 12:05 AM
A trick I utilize quite often for explosions is that I have my emitters pump out fuel for 10 or so frames before the explosion needs to take place, then just animate the temperature on the emitters to light the fuel up on the correct frame. Make sure the temperature diffusion is up (I find 10-20 a good start), so the heat spreads through the fuel quickly. Combined with an animated time scale, it can really go a long way to helping get the quick burst at the beginning.

-Dan

tool2heal
09-21-2011, 04:36 AM
Keep in mind also that if ur using particle sources that you can use a
seperate particle system for each. ie. one system for fuel, one for temperature.
shoot the fuel particles out, then a couple frames after shoot the temperature particles out,
and if u want mix a little fuel with the temperature particles.

takhachhe
09-25-2011, 02:13 AM
Hey

Sometimes I face some facet kind of pattern in my simulation. When I render smoke there is some square kind of pattern, Why is it so? If somebody had faced such issue and solved it let us know..

XRM
09-26-2011, 04:31 AM
Hey

Sometimes I face some facet kind of pattern in my simulation. When I render smoke there is some square kind of pattern, Why is it so? If somebody had faced such issue and solved it let us know..

Maube you can try cranking up the spacing...Remember the less it goes the more detail it gets...


Cheers!!! :buttrock:

circusboy
09-26-2011, 04:07 PM
Also maybe increase max iterations for more sim steps.
Its quite a circumstantial issue this-so a movie clip might help to show us 'when' its happening and to help you more.
Sometimes just the emission method is more prone to it (i.e. less common of a problem -from my experience-emitting from particle sources for example).

jdrouse
09-29-2011, 11:27 PM
Hey dudes,
I have a weird problem with my containers upon using wavelet and post. I have a totally normal container I simmed an explosion with. I built a WT set and then a post reduced set. Now when I switch to WT or Post set it resizes my grid in the scene to huge proportions. Scaling the grid back to the correct size renders improperly, and adds banding and crap that isnt really there.

Any ideas?

-John

circusboy
09-30-2011, 02:39 PM
Never seen this. Its almost like your wavelette has been told to go lower rez than your original.
Thats the behavior you get when you load a low rez cache on a higher rez grid.
Other than that...shrug

adom86
10-04-2011, 05:05 PM
hmmmm... I thought I would load fume up and have a play around. It's doing the exact same thing! Strange!

Re-install may be needed.

em3
10-05-2011, 02:35 AM
Saw this on cnn and thought of you guys. I have never seen fire do this in real life.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2011/10/04/nr-backdraft-explosion.cnn

adom86
10-05-2011, 06:26 PM
well in response to the wavelet down-sizing grid. I think I was just tired!

Silly me had simulation loop checked, uncheck it and wavelet works fine :P

circusboy
10-05-2011, 06:36 PM
well in response to the wavelet down-sizing grid. I think I was just tired!

Silly me had simulation loop checked, uncheck it and wavelet works fine :P
Interesting thats the effect you got. Does it make sense or is it a bug?!...

adom86
10-05-2011, 06:49 PM
Basically it was re-looping the wavelet sim and I was just stopping it and then switching the cache... It obviously took the size of the grid from the wavelet cache from the first few 're-cached' frames.

I think it makes sense anyway... it was me just being tired and not realising (thinking it was re-doing the wavelet for no reason at all) I had it on loop haha

PsychoSilence
10-06-2011, 06:03 PM
http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?p=7134422#post7134422

Any thoughts on that one? getting a dotNet runtime error and the viewport freezes/renders pop up an error window...just recently updated win7 to SP1.

---------------------------
MAXScript Callback script Exception
---------------------------
-- Runtime error: dotNet runtime exception: The parameter is incorrect
---------------------------
OK
---------------------------

TD0615VFX
10-16-2011, 09:35 PM
Hey guys here are some of my FumeFX works

Large Scale Smoke (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLCa2ZSFqa4)

Human Torch Head Breakdown (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NylZUDfsiUs)

Death Eater (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kelyqwAndD4)

Human Torch Hand (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHk2w3mcehQ)

adom86
10-20-2011, 01:47 PM
Yo! been a while since I done some fume stuff... need to put a big ass explosion into a shot, you guys want to take a look at the movement etc? It is low res as dont want to put the high-res online yet :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=733_seVK0K4

made up of 3 seperate FFX explosions, a debris layer (which you cant really see in low res) and a smoke trails layer. Comped roughly in Nuke :)

circusboy
10-20-2011, 02:04 PM
Well I'm convinced. But its so far away.:scream:

Glacierise
10-20-2011, 02:12 PM
Sweet!! I love it. You might just glow the hot areas a bit, camera is exposed for quite low light and these should blow out. Great looking dynamics though ;)

adom86
10-20-2011, 02:23 PM
Cheers guys! I just need to do a bit more work on it... then create a second explosion along with some F16's coming into shot and should be done haha.. shall post the high res finished version up probably next week :D

adom86
10-20-2011, 09:04 PM
what are your approaches to a very large smoke column. At the moment I'm using a simple particle source and then a wind.. the problem is that the wind eventually overpowers the smoke (after a long pre-roll) and it becomes quite fast moving in the direction of the wind. I'm on the train at the moment and completely forgot the name of the thing that acts like drag force on the smoke, but anyway that does help a little bit.

On most references from YouTube it kind of stagnates at high altitude.. you guys done much on this type of thing... I basically have to add evidence of a previous bomb hit in the scene above :)

ThallDesign
10-20-2011, 10:14 PM
I'd also like a little bit of information about wind and fumeFX. BetterWind is a nice plugin but crashes fume on simulation, so I've been trying to recreate a 'gusting' effect with the standard wind by key framing the strength to randomly flux between 5-15. It still affects the entire smoke plume at once though, it'd be nice if some sort of noise could be added to the field so certain areas push harder than others.

It works, but there has to be an automated way, or different wind setup other than the default one that comes with max.

Do the professionals fake wind using gravity vector? I've had some success with this in tests but movement is too uniform.

http://www.brandonriza.com/3DVisualEffects/HTML/WarHammer2--FXBuild--Sc004--S0002.htm

This smoke and dust just seems to turbulent and random. Could just be the fact that there is a dozen FX passes and I only ever look at one or two at once, but maybe not...

adom86
10-21-2011, 03:15 PM
Newer version with some suspect looking F16's (needs work) but has 2 explosions, some glow and some lighting on the floor, although the second bomb doesnt have as much yet.

Do they look too similar?

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

circusboy
10-21-2011, 03:36 PM
Do they look too similar?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GE_rlMmiiys
Probably just a tish since there are only two...

adom86
10-21-2011, 04:02 PM
You are right :)

heres a new version, got rid of the plume from the 2nd explosion but moved the base towards the 1st explosion and offset a few frames. Look more natural? I personally think it does but ive been looking at it for aaagggeeess :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj8bWh99s6Q (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj8bWh99s6Q)

Glacierise
10-21-2011, 05:17 PM
Much better, compositionally. You just need to do some mask/ligtwrap at the base.

circusboy
10-21-2011, 07:12 PM
Explosions look great. But I think the second bomb anticipates the second plane too much.
Its like the first one dropped them both close together. And the second plane is just there as a tourist.:twisted:
If both planes are dropping the bomps they'd likely end up in different parts of the city.
Sure you could argue they are far appart but visually overlapp. But pretend I'm your client.:p

SandeepMaithani
10-24-2011, 05:10 PM
Hi
I'm pretty new to fumefx..was trying my hands on a explosion and everything was going ok but suddenly i started getting these black patches..any idea what this could be?
thnks

sandy

THarland
10-24-2011, 06:11 PM
Hi
I'm pretty new to fumefx..was trying my hands on a explosion and everything was going ok but suddenly i started getting these black patches..any idea what this could be?
thnks

sandyLooks like overbright/unclamped colors.

circusboy
10-24-2011, 06:29 PM
Are you by any chance using a particle source and the particles are visible to render? (they shoul be off)
I've never had that dramatic a color clip myself....

SandeepMaithani
10-25-2011, 05:42 AM
@THarland..yeah..it seems to be a color issue..any idea how can i fix this??
@circusboy..all the emitters are set to non renderable

THarland
10-25-2011, 06:28 AM
any idea how can i fix this??What renderer are you using?

SandeepMaithani
10-25-2011, 08:03 AM
Scanline...

circusboy
10-25-2011, 01:25 PM
Post a grab of your gradient. Also are you using fluid mapping? if so does it still look like that if thats deactivated?

THarland
10-25-2011, 02:22 PM
Scanline...Clamping is probably not the problem if you're using scanline.
Try what circusboy suggested.

SandeepMaithani
10-26-2011, 10:28 AM
This is the file in question..

https://www.dropbox.com/s/nb4zn0cg90exgt9/building03_up.zip

.i've some more queries as well..
1. How do i increase the length of explosion...i either increase particle duration from PF or use timescale..is it correct?
2. The explosion looks like a patch at the start. How can i correct it?..have tried a lot of things but no success yet...
Thnks

sandy

THarland
10-26-2011, 06:50 PM
It was clamping.
Uncheck "video color check" under scanline common parameters->options.

tool2heal
10-27-2011, 11:59 PM
Think of the timescale as a fast forward, slow motion type of thing.
Anything above 1, everything moves faster, below 1, everything moves slower.
but keep in mind the lower the timescale, things start to get a little, Weird.


as for making ur particles last longer yes, ur particles will continue to be fire until they die.
then the burn rate takes over and finishes the process.

SandeepMaithani
10-29-2011, 05:19 AM
Thanks THarland and tool2heal..got it now.

SandeepMaithani
10-29-2011, 07:43 PM
is it possible to keep just one PF event out of fumefx calculations? i mean i want fumefx to ignore one particular event. Is it possible?

circusboy
10-31-2011, 05:33 PM
Someboddy correct me if i am wrong but i think the only way is to dissable that event for the PF souce used for fume's Particle_Source.
If you need the event for something else either render on a seperate pass (with it enabled) and/or duplicate/instance the PF source tree for that task exclusively.

tool2heal
10-31-2011, 09:22 PM
Best option is to put a pflow-aburn operator in each event you want fume to use. then pick that in your particle source instead of the main event.

so say you have 3 events, just put pflow-aburn in say event 1 and 3, then in ur particle source pick those 2 aburn operators. you could also make 2 particle sources and use a seperate aburn operator in each, therefore giving you more control.

but yes, you can skip a specific event, just use aburn operators in the ones you want fume to use, and wire those into the source instead of the actual pflow.

xplodeworkshop
10-31-2011, 09:27 PM
is it possible to keep just one PF event out of fumefx calculations? i mean i want fumefx to ignore one particular event. Is it possible?



There is a very easy way to simulate one event of pflow in fumefx
just apply PflowAburn in particular event and then take it in your Particles Source in Fumefx
But you have to install AfterBurn for this

SandeepMaithani
11-01-2011, 06:23 AM
Thnks guys..i dont hv aburn so cant try it right now...
This is what i was working on
http://youtu.be/pFdi9u00uG8
There are few more things i wanted to try in this..
when the concrete chunks collide with each other, they shud produce dust...
i hv all the frags sitting under position object operator and they spawn whn they hit the ground, producing dust/debris etc. but how do i make them produce particles whn the collide with each other?
secondly the smoke looks flat, how do i increase details inside it..
This is not fumfx related though but the pillar looks broken in render (not in viewport) right frm frame one..i fragmented it with rayfire..is there a glitch?
Thnks guys

sandy

Tollman
11-01-2011, 02:28 PM
I have a cached fume with all the detail and niceness that i need, although when creating additional passes for my effect, (embers, light and stuff) i need a lower resolution grid for this, since the detail wont show through in those operations, and the highres cache is too slow.
Is there a way to take the cache and in a sense remove every other voxel, to downres it to half the spacing and therefore make it easier to work with, but without the need to resim it, since it would make different results at lower resolutions and other issues I have with fume at the moment would make me to throw out the computer though the window? :argh:

tool2heal
11-01-2011, 02:45 PM
I have a cached fume with all the detail and niceness that i need, although when creating additional passes for my effect, (embers, light and stuff) i need a lower resolution grid for this, since the detail wont show through in those operations, and the highres cache is too slow.
Is there a way to take the cache and in a sense remove every other voxel, to downres it to half the spacing and therefore make it easier to work with, but without the need to resim it, since it would make different results at lower resolutions and other issues I have with fume at the moment would make me to throw out the computer though the window? :argh:


Are you talking about using one grid for everything?

your best option is to use multiple grids. say one for main explosion, one for embers, sparks, shockwave, and so on. create multiple grids for multiple effects, then come render time, just hide/ turn off rendering in the grids you don't want to render, or use layers. This way you can render out multiple passes, ie. main, embers, sparks, shockwave, and then comp them together.

circusboy
11-01-2011, 02:49 PM
I have a cached fume with all the detail and niceness that i need, although when creating additional passes for my effect, (embers, light and stuff) i need a lower resolution grid for this, since the detail wont show through in those operations, and the highres cache is too slow.
Is there a way to take the cache and in a sense remove every other voxel, to downres it to half the spacing and therefore make it easier to work with, but without the need to resim it, since it would make different results at lower resolutions and other issues I have with fume at the moment would make me to throw out the computer though the window? :argh:
I'm not quite sure what you need here. If the cache is good why does it interfere with the other layers of your effect? I work with multiple and complex fumes and scenes and simply hide what i am not using at the moment...
If you want the downrez the result as close as possible to the original i suppose you could try wavelette-which should be pretty fast-but i haven't tride 'down rezing' with it...

Or have a hirez and a lowrez cache and switch between them-should be pretty plug-and-play if you don't adjust any other parameters. You could even just have two fume boxes one for hirez and one for low rez and hide/unhide as needed.

But all this seems obvious-not sure i understand your issue.
Edit-If Tool2Heal has understood your problem correctly-never try and do *everything* with one fume box. So much easier to layer with speciffic fumes for a speciffic task.
You can even render a couple together if you like (say you really need the fire to be 'inside' your smoke and not just comped 'under' it).

Tollman
11-01-2011, 02:50 PM
Are you talking about using one grid for everything?

your best option is to use multiple grids. say one for main explosion, one for embers, sparks, shockwave, and so on. create multiple grids for multiple effects, then come render time, just hide/ turn off rendering in the grids you don't want to render, or use layers. This way you can render out multiple passes, ie. main, embers, sparks, shockwave, and then comp them together.

that's not really what i'm after, i have only one fume grid in the scene, and i dont want more fume based effects. what i need to do is light my scene with the fume in a lighting scene, and instead of using the full resolution grid, i need to downres it to calculate the lighting faster, but the light should still come from the fire grid.

circusboy
11-01-2011, 03:02 PM
I guess multiple hi/low rez fume grids then or try the wavelette for your basic light setup. However for final lighting/detailing you probably can't avoid using the hirez grid for fine tuning anyway.

Tollman
11-01-2011, 03:08 PM
i did this the brute force way, with just lowering the settings for the fume and recaching to a new directory to get this lower res cache whitch i use for lightcasting, and the result turns out really good, but it is the way that i create the lowres grid that i would like to have more handy with just a "remove every other voxel and save to a new folder" or so.. but the wavelet with a gridsize of .5 seems valid to try out.

amckay
11-01-2011, 10:27 PM
I've already done this, and it's still not moving fast enough. I have it ramping from a time scale of 3.0 down to 1.1. Perhaps I can raise it even higher than 3.

... How does one get a rapid expansion for an explosion. A lot of tutorials I see out there have a nice looking explosion, but they always start off slow, and continue moving slowly. If you take a car bomb for example, the explosion would reach full size in about 5 frames, but then move upward slowly from that. How would you guys recommend approaching this? I am currently using particle systems as emitters, but I've heard of others using rapidly scaling geometry. What are the thoughts on this?


RE quick explosions. It's one of those things when you're doing FX that it's easier to follow what is easier to do than what might happen in reality. For instance a lot of effects like big billowing smoke take hours to get to the size they're at, but instead in a lot of VFX you're going to try to achieve the same thing in 200 frames because subtle moving effects aren't' as interesting as something that is active and reactive.

Same deal with fast explosions, if it explodes over 6 frames and then curls and boils from there it's a little less interesting than doing nice cool expansive effects. But more importantly, to get that result you're usually going to have to simulate substeps fairly high to get it to do what you're after. Usually if you're getting something that explodes over 6 or so frames you want your substeps to be at least 4 or 5 which can slow things down pretty drastically. Fume 2.1+ is at least more dynamic in how it handles simulation steps, but it still gets annoying to sacrifice simulation time for something like that - but you're right in reality most explosions happen SOO fast and then usually you're left with billowing smoke. So everyone usually opts for Hollywood 'visually appealing' effects over what you would usually see.

tarik3d
11-02-2011, 12:07 PM
I have a quadro 4000, is there a way I can use the power from this to sim faster?

Thanks

circusboy
11-02-2011, 01:52 PM
More processors and more ram are the best additions for faster fume sims (and any sims for that matter). And don't bother with 32bit.

So what are your specs around the quadro?

JohnnyRandom
11-02-2011, 02:29 PM
I have a quadro 4000, is there a way I can use the power from this to sim faster?

Thanks

Currently, no :(

ThallDesign
11-05-2011, 05:43 PM
I have been seeing odd artifacting in my renders lately. Plumes just seem to flatten off at the top, has anybody else seen this? What causes it? It's more apparent in motion I'll upload the clip shortly.

http://vimeo.com/31682001

It is most visible after the 2nd explosion right after the fire turns to smoke.

Fume 2.1c, cubic interpolation on, sim steps =3, CFL cond=9.

I have multiple PFlow sources as my emitters, and wind added to my fume box, but not the particles as they are locked on their emitter.

OTHER QUESTION: In my simulation dialogue box I can see that CFL condition is sometimes as high as 14-17 while I simulate, but the spinner box will only go up to 10. Is there a reason for this? Am I correct in believing CFL condition works on the idea that if your simulation moves more than 'x' amount of voxels per frame it adds substeps, where 'x' is the CFL number.

circusboy
11-07-2011, 01:39 PM
I've seen something similar (with an explosion as it happens) with the Maximum Simulation Steps other than 1. Is that the case for you?

ThallDesign
11-07-2011, 03:07 PM
Indeed! My max. Simulation steps are set at 3 with a CFL condition of 9. This is fume 2.1c just so everybody is clear.

Is my problem because I have it at some odd in-between value? Like it really needs 6 but I'm only giving it 3? Or is 3 overkill in most situations?(this is on a shot for shot basis I figured) It really only seems to use 3 simsteps in the first 40 frames or so, then it uses 1 step per frame.

I need to re-sim with 1 sim step when I get home and see what my results are.

circusboy
11-07-2011, 03:31 PM
Hard to say. When i saw the issue it was in a fumefx version that didn't have the CFL condition. But the higher the substeps the more 'squared' it looked at certain frames. For me I got away with no extra substeps-aka 1. But i never took the time to explore the circumstances of it-sorry.

jdrouse
11-11-2011, 12:48 AM
I've recently had the same issue with flat plumes on intense smoke explosions. I kept the substeps above 1 because of the speed of the blast. I don't have the files around anymore but I'd like to know more.

-J

JohnnyRandom
11-11-2011, 01:16 AM
OTHER QUESTION: In my simulation dialogue box I can see that CFL condition is sometimes as high as 14-17 while I simulate, but the spinner box will only go up to 10. Is there a reason for this? Am I correct in believing CFL condition works on the idea that if your simulation moves more than 'x' amount of voxels per frame it adds substeps, where 'x' is the CFL number.

That is correct, the CFL Condition will add extra substeps when it surpasses the CFL Condition threshold. As to why it is 14-17 substeps not sure, most things in Fume are only UI locked, meaning you can mxs/trackview set most settings beyond the UIs clamps BUT you may be more prone to instability in your simulations. Don't expect any tech support for blasting settings beyond the UI and having an F'd up sim/render. You have been WARNED :twisted:

I think the a CFL Condition of 9 is a bit little excessive (think of it like the Quality setting, much above 5 and it really doesn't do much but take longer to sim ;) ), 5.0 the default, tends to give the best results IMO, and from Kreso's lips... stay lower than 7.

As for the flattening which solver are you using? Both of the new solvers are typically best suited for slow moving fluids unless you are doing some radical experimental sims or so forth and such. IIRC flattening is typically the result of no advection or not enough advection passing into neighboring voxels. You case looks a little extreme though, I can't say that I have ever seen it that pronounced. I can only think to say try tweaking the advection stride.

Nice sim by the way :)

Glacierise
11-11-2011, 10:04 AM
My guess for the flattening is that the adaptive grid is too aggressive and it clamps the active area too much with the fast things. Decrease the adaptive param and see if it helps :)

Cuprum
11-14-2011, 09:51 PM
Hi. I am new to FumeFX and need help already :) I just created very simple flame, but can't figure out how to get rid of weird vertical lines near bottom. My initial thought was that these are artifacts due to low resolution, but high res didn't help either. Setup is pretty default, no smoke, nothing crazy, almost didn't touch anything. http://i30.fastpic.ru/big/2011/1115/0d/5abce20f6a5f7e61a1e5537915f9260d.jpg

depleteD
11-14-2011, 10:00 PM
I recommend avoiding ffx for something as simple as this. If the flame isnt collideing with anything, its pointless to use ffx. This can easily be done with animated geometry and a shader.

mickatt
11-15-2011, 09:39 AM
Hello,
I wonder if there is a way to attract a smoke in fumefx instead of creating a source object an animate this object ? I don't want to animate a ball because it looks like a trail effect?
Do you know if there are a spaceward that create an attractor effect for fumefx please?

Thanks a lot for answer

Ps: sorry for my english

JohnnyRandom
11-15-2011, 07:48 PM
Sure but not very controllable:

http://vimeo.com/32162816

Wind spacewarp with negative strength, falloff, and some turbulence.

mickatt
11-15-2011, 08:09 PM
Thanks a lot for your answer Johnny

I will try with the wind and negative value

mickatt
11-18-2011, 04:40 PM
I have a question about fumefx birth and fumefx follow in Pflow.
I would like to know why the particle don't follow the fumefx when I use and animate the timescale ? Does someone have the same problem.?

thanks a lot for your answers

tool2heal
11-18-2011, 05:06 PM
I have a question about fumefx birth and fumefx follow in Pflow.
I would like to know why the particle don't follow the fumefx when I use and animate the timescale ? Does someone have the same problem.?

thanks a lot for your answers


Are you sure that you are exporting the velocity channel
during your FumeFX simulation?

mickatt
11-18-2011, 05:29 PM
Hello Jason,

Yes of course.But when I animate the timescale (from 1.0 to 0.2 for example) in fumefx the particle in pflow is too fast and not corresponding to the fumefx movement.

thanks

Mike

tool2heal
11-18-2011, 05:34 PM
Hello Jason,

Yes of course.But when I animate the timescale (from 1.0 to 0.2 for example) in fumefx the particle in pflow is too fast and not corresponding to the fumefx movement.

thanks

Mike

could you try maybe animating the influence value in the fumefollow parameters?
say the same way, from 1 to .2

mickatt
11-18-2011, 05:39 PM
No. I will try thanks for the tips Jason :thumbsup:

NahuelL
11-18-2011, 10:04 PM
Hey guys,

I'm trying to get a proper smoke zdepth pass. I get this render (attached image), but to composite it properly it needs to be smooth. It's very sharp right now. So is there a way to smooth it out to get the proper render?

Thanks
Nahuel

ThallDesign
11-18-2011, 10:14 PM
Hey guys,

I'm trying to get a proper smoke zdepth pass. I get this render (attached image), but to composite it properly it needs to be smooth. It's very sharp right now. So is there a way to smooth it out to get the proper render?

Thanks
Nahuel

Take this with a grain of salt because it's probably incorrect advice, but it's how I overcame a tricky situation a while back:

I had a fishing line animated pulling along a dollar bill on a fish hook. I wanted to do motion blur in post, since I was using Cinema4d and couldn't spare the rendering time to do it baked in. Whenever I'd render my vector passes there was ZERO anti aliasing so once the string got too thin it'd simply dissapear until it was thick enough again to draw at one pixel.

What I ended up doing was re-rendering my vector pass ONLY at 4K (or 4x whatever your resolution currently is) then scaling it down in After Effects to use as my vector pass. This basically "Aliased" the rough edges.

NahuelL
11-18-2011, 10:20 PM
Thanks for your reply, unfortunately that didn't work.

JohnnyRandom
11-19-2011, 06:28 AM
It is just the way it is, I have asked about it, as well as many others, noone has seemed to ever come up with a solution.

How does it look in comp? That is what matters.

kogden
11-19-2011, 10:24 AM
I'm going to have a stab at this; but Im pretty jet-lagged...

As far as i was aware, to generate a depth pass in max it basically needs faces, so the depth pass that is generated with fumefx is a hack around the fact that voxels aren't faces.... (thats my super basic understanding anyways, may be completely off though).

There's two potential work around, may help but might not work as expected...
1. Use the shader with in fume to generated a black to white Gradient and light according to the z-depth of your camera.... Off memory of doing and seeing this done.... its super fiddly and maybe not worth the effort...
2. Use krak to generate your depth pass... potentially more accurate but another step in your workflow.

Hope that makes sense....

As Mr Random mentioned, its been flagged by at least four people that I'm aware of and I'd easily guess more....maybe Kresmir will have a better fix in the next released?

Kieran

adom86
11-22-2011, 10:57 AM
Hey guys

Another project im looking to work on! Basically going to have to set a real person on fire who may be quite still and not as animated as this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63Ica7wa24U

Thats my first round of testing on a basic model with dodgy animation by me :P

If you guys were to do this in production, obviously would have to track the camera but would you try and do an accurate model of the person and object track or is there any other methods you guys know? Just throwing ideas out at the moment as looking to do this in a shot next week :D

Cheers

Glacierise
11-22-2011, 12:12 PM
Too much turbulence, otherwise nice detail! I'd put a texture on the source so it grows from islands instead of the whole thing, will give it more detail. Add plenty embers good shader underneath, some heat haze and you're there :)

adom86
11-22-2011, 12:42 PM
Thanks Hristo!

Shall have a look at making a better shader etc. Any advice on how you might apply this to a real person, not asking for a step by step but maybe your approach in production to give me some ideas :D

Glacierise
11-22-2011, 12:58 PM
You'll need to have a digital double. From that you can emit your textured fuel and smoke. Once you have a cool main ffx sim, you make a low res copy of it for dragging particles around - you create some embers with pflow on top, 2-3 layers with different characteristics (color, size). You make An additional element of bigger pieces teaing from the guy and flying off, with their own fire/smoke/embers sims. Then at the end, you make 1-3 atmospheric dust/smoke sims for the environment around the character, and that's usually it :)

adom86
11-22-2011, 01:10 PM
Cheers for the advice :D

Main issue is going to be creating the digital double... but hopefully he wont be moving too much as hes supposed to be sat down! Much appreciated :D

adom86
11-22-2011, 02:40 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3YnBh0NZ8w

A new version with basic texture on but has a burn shader also eating away at mesh with vray displacement mod on top. Think I went a bit crazy with the bits falling off :P

Few embers in there so far.

Glacierise
11-22-2011, 03:02 PM
You need bigger pieces falling off, not just the small stuff. Otherwise - same comments a above :)

circusboy
11-22-2011, 03:07 PM
Yeah texture is a bit too much of a wipe. You could break it up more.
Also a bit odd that it starts from his belly. Why is he catching on fire? Whats the source?
But the fire sim is looking pretty nice.

b1m2x3
11-22-2011, 06:06 PM
So I've been trying to make a script that will write fumefx cache data out locally, and then copy it to a network location after each frame. I'd like to reduce network traffic due to the constant reading/writing of fdc files. It's really slowing us down right now as we haven't been able to dedicate a real file server to storing our fume files.

This script does some funky things sometimes though... like writing out fire data with no smoke data.... I'm not sure how to improve it. I want it to be automatic, but it seems to screw up on changing the path back to the default location... any ideas? Anyone want to test it? I think it could be useful for a few people out there...

global FumeFXNode = ffx
global OrigPath = FumeFXNode.GetPath "default"
global LocalPath = "C:\fumecache"
global OutputName = filterString OrigPath "\\"
global BaseName = (OutputName[(OutputName.count)])
global BasePath = ""

for a = 1 to (OutputName.count-1) do
(
BasePath = BasePath + OutputName[a] + "\\"
)



fn PreSim = (
FumeFXNode.SetPath (LocalPath + "\\" + BaseName) "default"
)

fn PostSim = (
DosCommand ("copy /Y " + (LocalPath + "\\" + BaseName) + "* " + (BasePath))
FumeFXNode.SetPath (OrigPath) "default"
)

fn PostStep = (
DosCommand ("move /Y " + (LocalPath + "\\" + BaseName) + "*.fxd " + (BasePath))
)

JohnnyRandom
11-22-2011, 06:44 PM
Myself I would write a standalone script that changes your output name, fires off the sim, then copies the files instead of using preSim and postSim. It would be soo much easier to write and troubleshoot.

Personally, I think of the MXS within the FumeUI for tweaking voxels not moving files. It may work here and there, I just don't feel that is what it was designed to do.

In fact you could easily add a post copy function to this script: FFXBBQ (http://4rand.com/stuff/script-ffxbbq/)

b1m2x3
11-22-2011, 07:37 PM
Myself I would write a standalone script that changes your output name, fires off the sim, then copies the files instead of using preSim and postSim. It would be soo much easier to write and troubleshoot.

Personally, I think of the MXS within the FumeUI for tweaking voxels not moving files. It may work here and there, I just don't feel that is what it was designed to do.

In fact you could easily add a post copy function to this script: FFXBBQ (http://4rand.com/stuff/script-ffxbbq/)

the problem is we need to move the files after each frame - our local drives have very little space. Can I do anything postStep from an external script?

JohnnyRandom
11-22-2011, 07:58 PM
Honestly, I think your best bet is to use a managed file transfer app like repliweb. You have set folders that it watches then transfers the files out to a specified location.

If you do want to venture into the uncharted territory of the FumeUI MXS, I would at least leave the prior cached frame plus the one it is currently caching, I am going to take a guess that the current frame references some aspects of the previous frame cache.

adom86
11-24-2011, 11:34 AM
Thanks Circusboy! The source is eventually going to be a fire breathing baby! This is just testing out some settings for burning up the guy who is looking after the baby lol...

Im going to shorten the flames and try get an effect similar to blade trinity.. shall post results once done as redoing all the pflow system :D

ColonelMillerSG21
11-28-2011, 09:32 PM
Hey guys

Iīm still workin on my Armageddon scene, as you can see in the video^^.
The problem is that the flickering doesnīt wanna go away. Itīs not a light flickering, itīs like an animation without MotionBlur. The transition between two images is not smooth, it looks like the changes between 2 Frames are too big.
I used Image Motion Blur, Standard Renderer (no mentalRay)
Timescale about 0,55
30FPS
How can i solve the problem?
Here is a 2 second render:

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

adom86
12-07-2011, 02:35 AM
Well I started again on monday on setting someone on fire! ... this one is a lot closer to the camera and is just the shoulders/head.

Just one frame at the moment not got the comp right yet! this is the only frame looking good i think lol

http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/3536/burningguy.png

Cryptite
12-07-2011, 04:00 PM
Sweet frame, man! Looks like you really got your embers/sparks shader down, how'd you manage the proper coloring on those, or is there more magic in the comp than the raw image?

adom86
12-07-2011, 04:06 PM
A huge amount of magic in Nuke :D The raw frames look awful haha. The embers shader is just a basic falloff material from white to orange. Just want to try get it to look good in motion, thats my next challenge! :D

Cryptite
12-07-2011, 04:17 PM
That was my guess. I've been trying to create the 'perfect ember' material, a combination of a lot of things, including scripted brightness based on the speed of the ember, mimicking the effect of the hotness it yields when it blows around quickly. Might be overkill though... hehe

Darknon
12-08-2011, 01:58 PM
Looks really good :)

Da_Ul
12-08-2011, 02:46 PM
Short FumeFx/Krakatoa piece!

http://vimeo.com/33153341

(thx to Eduard Schulze-Battmann for his tutorial)

Uli

aligatorno
12-10-2011, 10:11 PM
Hi.I have a problem with fumefx .I want to render the result with krakatoa,but i can't get the particles to appear.I set the settings,add velocity as an exporting channel,and simulate.I open the pflow, add an empty flow.Than i add fumefx birth and fumefx follow, chosing the grid and position icon , than i connect them to the empty flow , but the particles don't appear.I don't set the pflow correctly?

PexElroy
12-11-2011, 01:47 PM
Very nice work :)

Glacierise
12-12-2011, 11:56 PM
Nice one, Uli

circusboy
12-13-2011, 01:52 PM
Hi.I have a problem with fumefx .I want to render the result with krakatoa,but i can't get the particles to appear.I set the settings,add velocity as an exporting channel,and simulate.I open the pflow, add an empty flow.Than i add fumefx birth and fumefx follow, chosing the grid and position icon , than i connect them to the empty flow , but the particles don't appear.I don't set the pflow correctly?
From here it sounds like you did everything correctly.
Did you Align the pf source to the fumefx grid?

fandalis
12-14-2011, 12:59 AM
hi, just have a question.. how do fumefx particles dissipate in pflow. i simmed smoke w/c dissipates in fume using wavelet then plugged it in pflow (event01 - fumefx birth op - fumefx follow op- display then fumefx test plugged to event 2 which is a delete operator with default setting). i compared both particle display in pflow and fume, the motion is ok but there is no dissipation in pflow unlike in fume. please advise. thanks!

circusboy
12-14-2011, 04:49 PM
You need to do an age delete in pflow that matches the context of your shot. pflow follow doesn't read fume dissipation.

NahuelL
12-14-2011, 05:55 PM
You can use a FumeFX Test op, and connect a Delete op to it. In the FumeFX Test op properties, check "Smoke" and play with its properties (if I remember correctly you need to check invert). You'll probably have to decrease the Minimum Value to 0.1. Play with it until it matches your fume sim preview :)

fandalis
12-14-2011, 07:49 PM
Yes, there is already a FumeFX Test Operator in event 01 and plugged in a Delete Op. Will tweak it again with the param you advised. Thanks!

fandalis
12-14-2011, 08:13 PM
You can use a FumeFX Test op, and connect a Delete op to it. In the FumeFX Test op properties, check "Smoke" and play with its properties (if I remember correctly you need to check invert). You'll probably have to decrease the Minimum Value to 0.1. Play with it until it matches your fume sim preview :)
Exactly! Thanks a lot for the advise! :beer:

NahuelL
12-14-2011, 08:40 PM
Exactly! Thanks a lot for the advise! :beer:

You're welcome! :)

cboath
12-19-2011, 05:38 PM
I've got a scene with 2 grids. Basically guy uses a match to light something else. Anyhow i have it done and looking fine. I can render the full pass of each sim just fine. Problem is, if I render both at once, where the match sim passes over the same area as the other sim, there's a square area of the other sim basically blocked out as if cut with a clipping plane or something. I figure it's a render setting, but everything I change has no effect. You can see it in the attached pic.

Thanks

FWIW, this is still 1.2. I'm awaiting a new machine that will have 2, just stuck in the waiting game for now.

circusboy
12-19-2011, 06:00 PM
Thats odd. Are you rendering mental ray per chance? mr used to have issues with overlapping volume bboxes. But I've never seen this with fume however-but I've only ever rendered with default and vray. But multiple overlapping fume boxes haven't been a problem for me.
What does the alpha of each box (rendered alone) look like?

cboath
12-19-2011, 06:26 PM
Rendered individually, they look fine.

I'm using MR - however, if i switch it over to scanline, same problem.

cboath
12-19-2011, 06:29 PM
agghhh....#$%&#%^*$*$&(*

Figures. It's one of those ask a question then get/remember the answer. The MR fix is to turn on Autovolume. Not sure why I never checked that. Still, if I switch the default scanline renderer i get the messed up result.

circusboy
12-19-2011, 06:57 PM
Sounds like its rendering right in mr now-right?
I don't suppose you are rendering fuel by accident...probably not.

Still I've never seen this with default/scaline an overlapping is a pretty common thing.

cboath
12-19-2011, 07:36 PM
I figured it would be common. I ran into it nearly 1.5 years ago and stumbled on the autovolume solution. Haven't had much time since to get back to fume since then (been swamped on projects that didn't require it) it took me a while to remember it.

My first thought was that it was an MR thing so i switched renderers and no change. Only thing i can think of is that maybe other MR stuff in the shot messed with it somehow. I was only doing a render selected though so it shouldn't have mattered - other than the physical sky in the background.

circusboy
12-19-2011, 07:51 PM
physical sky in the background.
ding ding-as in GI?
I've seen issues even in softimage along those lines (with particle volumes/GI) and mr. All i can say is i haven't been using that with fume shots but I never had your issue either.
Something to check (with it off).

yanekx
12-20-2011, 10:21 AM
I have an issue with setting an expression in Obj/Src to Temp. fuel or Smoke Amounts.

The problem is I cant figure out what to get as variable - something that changes in time (eg. time in seconds or miliseconds).
Or maybe I assuming wrong how expreesions actualy works.
By me it should iterate every voxel every frame and set to voxel whatever I set as an expression (eg. temp).

I couldn`t find any info on google.

Maybe someone could redirect me to some documents, tuts, or simply explain how expressions work (eg. how to set up expression to temp as sine wave - from -300 to 300 in 100 frames with 25FPS)
thanks!

Glacierise
12-20-2011, 02:11 PM
That's not a FumeFX function, it's a Max one. You can either put an expression controller on the temperature track (you can access it from the track view) and write an expression on it, or just animate a sine wave on the default bezier controller, or put a waveform controller and dial the sin wave there - plenty of options :)

aligatorno
12-20-2011, 02:46 PM
How many particles i should use to get a realistic effect when i'm using krakatoa to render?Until now, i used 8 milions as the highest count,but i still get that grainy effect.http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL32DFADEAC26924CE&feature=view_all here is a playlist of a few tests that i made. for nr 5 i used 8 milion.

yanekx
12-20-2011, 02:56 PM
thank Glacierise!
useful tip, but I was talking about grey square on the right to temp/fuel/smoke spinner amount (in FFX Source parameters).
You Right Click on it, choose Expression, then left click and you get expression window.
What is it for (it doesn`t look like Expression Controller window, the function list is extended and it doesn`t want to evaluate eg. F)?

Glacierise
12-20-2011, 03:56 PM
I haven't really used that :) It's cool to connect the temperature to fuel/smoke with it, but I haven't touched the expression.

Glacierise
12-28-2011, 11:29 PM
How many particles i should use to get a realistic effect when i'm using krakatoa to render?Until now, i used 8 milions as the highest count,but i still get that grainy effect.http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL32DFADEAC26924CE&feature=view_all here is a playlist of a few tests that i made. for nr 5 i used 8 milion.

You should also drop the density, it's way too high now and that gives you the grainy look. The more particles, the less density is a generally good startpoint.

CiaranM
01-03-2012, 08:29 PM
Hi,
I'm getting really bad jittering of my post-processed sim when it is slowed down at all. I'm applying the retime to a WT cache with velocity channels exported. After retiming, the volume will jump back and forth every few frames...any ideas?

Thanks!

JohnnyRandom
01-04-2012, 03:50 AM
You are interpolating your simulation frames twice! Once with Wavelet, giving you twice the data from your original grid (assuming you are doubling the grid).Then again with a Post Process retime (assuming you are halving the speed) You are inevitably creating 4 frames for every 1 frame. It is like blowing up a animated gif smiley 400% it is going to look like crap! :)

Your best bet would be to either slow your fluid in the sim then wavelet or run your base sim at the wavelet res and post process retime it. Doing both is not recommended with the exception of speeding up the sim.

fandalis
01-06-2012, 08:04 AM
Good day! i have another question on dissipating particles when fume is plugged in pflow. i have this unwanted dissipation as you can see in the screenshots. i already checked the PF Source > System Management > Particle Amount which is set to 10,000,000 and tweaked the birth amount rate and the FumeFX Test Operator, etc.. but did not fix the problem. The particles always dies at frame 50 to 60.. i have a Delete Operator (set to Delete (All Particles)) plugged to a FumeFX Test Operator. And my particle emit start and stop in fume and pflow is set to 0-150. Here are the screenshots

pflow particles dying within frame 50-60
http://nomadph.com/~fandalis/pflow_particleDisplay.jpg

particle display in fume
http://nomadph.com/~fandalis/fume_display.jpg

pflow events
http://nomadph.com/~fandalis/pflow.jpg

Thanks!!!

GOVernor451
01-06-2012, 04:18 PM
Hello all! I'm new to FumeFX and looking for some guidance. Here's my reference and I'm trying to match it as accurately as I'm able. http://youtu.be/6gW-Txy8pmc

I can't seem to get the sense of scale correct... My director is happy with the general motion and timing of my simulation but It's not anywhere near detailed enough (and I've hit my RAM ceiling) Everything I get back looks like soft wispy cotton candy when I need it to look like the youtube video above.

Here's some renders of my sim.

Default Sim (http://extranet.spitzinc.com/download/public/creativemedia/FFX_Help/default.jpg)
Wavelet Sim (http://extranet.spitzinc.com/download/public/creativemedia/FFX_Help/wavelet.jpg)
Wavelet Preview Window (http://extranet.spitzinc.com/download/public/creativemedia/FFX_Help/preview.jpg)

Cranked up the opacity on this one so you could see the form better. High Opacity (http://extranet.spitzinc.com/download/public/creativemedia/FFX_Help/High_Opacity.jpg)

Thanks for your input :)

JohnnyRandom
01-06-2012, 08:09 PM
The particles always dies at frame 50 to 60.. i have a Delete Operator (set to Delete (All Particles)) plugged to a FumeFX Test Operator. And my particle emit start and stop in fume and pflow is set to 0-150.


Thanks for the pictures :) but they really aren't much help, we have no idea what else is setup/going on, anyway...

From what I can tell you are saying to pflow:
when Fire in a voxel is less than 1.0 delete it.

Here is an example of a similar working setup (it is a fast simulation)


@GOVernor451 - really cool ref for the first ten seconds and at 1.45 looks really cool :)

Without seeing your scene/setup/fume settings, I can only guess what to tell you to do.

Up you smoke amount and not your opacity ;) Try using Add instead of Set for your smoke.

How much ram do you have? If you hit your limit with a sim of that quality you definitely need to buy more ram. No excuses, you can get 8gb of decent ram for under $100. Without it you are never going to get anywhere near what you want. You can get close if you know what you are doing with less.

Another thing, are you using a Particle Source? If you are, don't or at the very least only use a few particles, you obviously don't have the system resources to cover the overhead (until you get more memory). You can get way more for less using a couple/bunch simple sources, then just fake the fire illumination with a couple of target spots with a short attenuation.

GOVernor451
01-06-2012, 08:36 PM
@GOVernor451 - really cool ref for the first ten seconds and at 1.45 looks really cool :)

Without seeing your scene/setup/fume settings, I can only guess what to tell you to do.

Up you smoke amount and not your opacity ;) Try using Add instead of Set for your smoke.

How much ram do you have? If you hit your limit with a sim of that quality you definitely need to buy more ram. No excuses, you can get 8gb of decent ram for under $100. Without it you are never going to get anywhere near what you want. You can get close if you know what you are doing with less.

Another thing, are you using a Particle Source? If you are, don't or at the very least only use a few particles, you obviously don't have the system resources to cover the overhead (until you get more memory). You can get way more for less using a couple/bunch simple sources, then just fake the fire illumination with a couple of target spots with a short attenuation.

Thanks for the response! A bit more info. to consider..

I do have a density / opacity issue.. My director wants to see the lava mesh through the smoke, so I simulated with a smoke density of .5 and the render opacity is set to .005 (.5 for the "much higher opacity" render) Everything is on Add and not set.

The source is indeed particles, they were given to me by the guy who made the lava mesh animation in realflow. I've significantly cut back on the total # of particles from the cache that was provided but it's still in the range of around 10,000 over 500 frames.

I have a decent machine. 12g of RAM, dual i7. All of the renders I posted are the very beginning of the animation and the grid is adaptive, so that's why the #'s seem low in the preview window... at the end of my animation and after wavelet, the grid resolution is around 1200x1200x1200. The effect overall is pretty large scale.. my fume container is about 200x200x200 meters. Also, the camera is pretty close to the effect and smoke comes very close to engulfing the camera by the end.

JohnnyRandom
01-06-2012, 11:30 PM
Hmm, of course he/she does :D Be aware that the density of smoke also dictates its behavior. If you don't have enough it will act whispy, if you have to much it can act a bit to heavy and settle.

Yes your machine is decent, more ram would only help, I would consider 12 a minimum. Like I said ram is cheap these days, small price to pay for better quality. It is not like the old days of thousands of dollars worth of ram and a server class machine to hold it.

The particle count is reasonable. So what are the particles doing? Just bouncing around in/on the fluid or are they traveling upward (ie up into the sky)? You can drive your cloud particles with another low res smoke sim. Then pipe them back into your high-res. Since your overlord :) likes the current motion you could bring that sim back into pflow and disk cache it (so if need be you can delete the sim cache if you need space) run it back into a new Grid/Particle Source.

If not now but later don't forget to experiment with collections of simple sources, they are much more efficient than particle sources. Look at it this way, each particle is pretty much a simple source emitter. Of course it is a little more optimized than that but think 10k simple sources that is a lot of overhead.

Also what about the when? Does the shot come in at the beginning or has the effect already evolved?

If it is the beginning you are pressed with more of an issue, if the effect is ongoing you could cheat by using multiple grids with different resolutions IF your camera works with it, that could help quite a bit. Sim the least amount you can get away with.

Without seeing the motion it kinda looks like mushy peas, how fast are you dissipating errant/old smoke? Another mistake is smoke dissipation in large scale it dissipates rather quickly, it doesn't hang around like fog, that is how you help maintain that nice bulbous structure.

There is a ton of other stuff you can do but start there.

3ak
01-07-2012, 05:38 AM
There is a ton of other stuff you can do but start there.

You can always share with me all this "ton of other stuff" here or in PM =)

JohnnyRandom
01-07-2012, 07:00 PM
You can always share with me all this "ton of other stuff" here or in PM =)

Just have to wade through the swamp, there are over 4500 posts in this thread alone and i would guess that aprox 4% (+-2) of those are good valuable tricks/techniques. :) You can always ask ;)

3ak
01-09-2012, 02:49 PM
Just have to wade through the swamp, there are over 4500 posts in this thread alone and i would guess that aprox 4% (+-2) of those are good valuable tricks/techniques. :) You can always ask ;)

wow, thanks)
And first my question is about cannon shots) what is the right way to make shots?
something like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aPdr3usSJk

or atleast something like that:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=Eox-jnTaEgk

I tried to use particles to "sculpt" smoke but ended up with smoky/fire dots. Is particles useful in fume simulations? if so - when?

thx in advance

circusboy
01-09-2012, 03:06 PM
@GOVernor451
In case it helps Allan Mckay (FumeFX 2) 'Core Fundimentals' has a volcano scene which is at least closer to your ref than what I think you are getting now. Look about half way down this page for how to get it (the entry dated Feb 21st 2011).
http://www.allanmckay.com/allanmckay/

Also note that sometimes depending on another simulation that looks 'perfect' for its task may not be ideal for *your* task. You may need to create your own sources-or at least additional sources to get the right look. As for the density thing-shouldn't you be controling most of this in your comp? I'd work on getting the scaling right and tweak density *last*. Right now it seems like a road block.

JohnnyRandom
01-09-2012, 06:15 PM
I tried to use particles to "sculpt" smoke but ended up with smoky/fire dots. Is particles useful in fume simulations? if so - when?

thx in advance

Try dumping your velocities too and create velocities with other means like a velocity pSystem or simple sources.

Sure, have you tried velocity sculpting w/ TP? check out Hristo's intro to it:
http://velevfx.com/2010/11/14/thinking-particles-video-tutorial-velocity-sculpting/

"Dots" are a result of of either of two things too few particles (more particles == heavier simulation) or too small a Particle Radius param (too big you will see much voxelization if you don't work your render AFC's correctly, even then you still may).

You need to find a good balance between voxel size and particle radius. If the radius is too small you won't get any result, too big you see voxel edges if the voxels are too large.

Glacierise
01-09-2012, 07:21 PM
Definitely looks like a particle source sim. And it's not gonna be just one sim - break it down by the colors and different events. And you don't definitely need to source everything from the particles - you can source the smoke from a simple one, and the velocity from particles. But you'll definitely need lots of particles, and careful balance with the radius. General rule is that the higher the density, the smaller the radius - approaching the voxel size, and don't spread them too much so you get the isolated bubbles.

And, if you're using TP - add a condition that sends the particle to a different group on death - there's a bug in TP/FFX that sends the particle to age 0 when it dies.

3ak
01-10-2012, 02:57 PM
thanks alot. will try everything and even more)
it it common practice to retime begining of the sim in post? Cause i don't see the way to "develop" such a strong smoke in 1-2 frames after shot.

circusboy
01-10-2012, 03:25 PM
Its the same issue explosions have. So do some seaches of this gigantic thread for methods to tackle it-just about everyone here has tried an explosion. (o:'

Glacierise
01-11-2012, 03:35 PM
Yeah, if you wanna do what these slow motion ones are doing, retiming is a helpful thing. And try higher frame rates, and then playing at 24, this will help.

Daniel-B
01-12-2012, 09:42 PM
Hey guys, I had a question about FumeFx. I know generally it is good practise to work at real world scales when doing FX. However, does Fume actually respect real world scales? For instance, if I made a cylinder the size of a candle wick in real life, I'd get a candle flame. If I could magically scale that cylinder up in real life to the size of a tree trunk, and light it on fire, I'd get a raging inferno, not a 20ft tall candle flame.

I'm wondering if fume respects scale in this way. Basically, I'm wondering if the simulation behaves differently depending on the size of the phenomena.

Glacierise
01-12-2012, 09:54 PM
Yes, size does matter :) You can also use the $.systemscale parameter in the listener with the fume selected, to set the internal scale.

Daniel-B
01-12-2012, 10:24 PM
I did know the systemscale trick, but I was unsure if it worked because Fume respects scale, or if it worked because now the turbulence value, or whatever would be smaller, and it just appeared to be larger scale as a by product.

Glacierise
01-12-2012, 10:39 PM
Turbulence is just a small part of it. The whole advection, moving material across space, depends on scale.

JimmyChan
01-16-2012, 02:25 AM
Hi guys,
I would like to know how can I render the normal map and the zdepth of FumeFX smoke and fire?
Thanks!

Ash007
01-17-2012, 03:57 PM
Hi,

I got a scene in which I have two particle sources and each of them is producing smoke. The smoke of those two sources is interacting fine with each other. Now I'm wondering if there is a way to give "smoke 1" the color red and "smoke 2" the color blue?

http://s1.directupload.net/images/120117/temp/42pltt7f.png (http://s1.directupload.net/file/d/2772/42pltt7f_png.htm)

Thanks for your help!

JohnnyRandom
01-17-2012, 05:41 PM
Currently, you can't, at least not how you are thinking. You have approx two options (there maybe a third). The first, I will give you a hint, http://vimeo.com/31573567, that simply requires waiting a little while. ;)

The second option and it won't be as accurate and is a bit of a PITA:
1. Run a simulation with the red source, this is the red smoke, add velocity
2. Create a particle system and pipe the red grid into it
3. Clone the grid, this is the blue smoke, create a new cache location, add velocity
4. Add a particle source to the blue grid using the red particles, disable all channels except velocity
5. Run the blue smoke sim (should be somewhat interacting with the red smoke now)
6. Go back to the red smoke sim and repeat the process by adding the newly created blue particles and rerun the sim now that you have blue smoke to interact with it.
7. Clone the grid once again add both the red and blue smoke sources (no particles), pick the blend color and run the sim
8. Render all three in separate passes blend in post.

That is the gist of it anyway.

Ash007
01-18-2012, 10:16 AM
Thanks for the answer.

Shattering, that always the assumed easy things just so hard to realise. How old is FumeFX? And after all these years, there is no easy way to archive this "easy" effect, all they have to do, is to put another color tab for a second particle source in the plugin, or am I wrong. :(

I will try to create the look in After Effects with masking and blending.

Anyway, thank you again. :)

PsychoSilence
01-18-2012, 10:45 AM
Wait for fume 3.0 ;)

Ash007
01-18-2012, 12:16 PM
Yeah, everything is going to be allright. ;)

Meanwhile compositing is the key.

circusboy
01-18-2012, 01:26 PM
And after all these years, there is no easy way to archive this "easy" effect, all they have to do, is to put another color tab for a second particle source in the plugin, or am I wrong. :(

I will try to create the look in After Effects with masking and blending.

Anyway, thank you again. :)
Not its not that easy the way its designed. You don't control color per source like a particle system. Smoke is 1 color per fumebox, fire is one color, and so on...
Its actually a weakness I've never needed fixed myself so far. But I am glad they are addressing it in 3.0 as it is something I know Houdini fluids can do...

SoLiTuDe
01-20-2012, 04:59 AM
Thanks for the answer.

Shattering, that always the assumed easy things just so hard to realise. How old is FumeFX? And after all these years, there is no easy way to archive this "easy" effect, all they have to do, is to put another color tab for a second particle source in the plugin, or am I wrong. :(

I will try to create the look in After Effects with masking and blending.

Anyway, thank you again. :)

It's easy in Houdini. :D

Edit: I realize circusboy just said it.

Daniel-B
01-20-2012, 05:55 AM
Speaking of Fume 3.0, what is the ETA on that? Other than "around the corner." That's so vague it's maddening. :p

Matroskin13
01-20-2012, 08:50 AM
Hi guys
I've got trouble with FumeFx 2.0 and vray 2.0.
If I create light source and enable GI some objects bacome blinking. If I delete light sourse and disable GI - everything's ok.
Could you advice me how to get good render?

ThallDesign
01-20-2012, 04:29 PM
I've been playing it safe for the past few months, posting tests on my Vimeo page but never putting it up here for critiques. Mostly it's because nothing is ever quite 'perfect' and worth showcasing but I am pretty happy with the result of my latest experiment.

Dust emitting from a broken brick fragments as a wall crumbles.
http://vimeo.com/35358901

Anesthaesia
01-20-2012, 04:47 PM
Personally one of the best 'crumble/collapse' sims I have seen, Thall. Light on turbulence (is it animated to drop off? Looks like it...) and the motion is spot on. Maybe decrease the dissipation slightly so it lingers a bit longer.

Also I'd suggest changing the colour though to match the wall, or vice versa - would blend in a lot better (I'm sure that is planned anyway :))

Other than that, great sim!

Glacierise
01-20-2012, 05:33 PM
Break it up more - one sim for dust bang after the hit, one sim from the ball trailing, one for trailing from the bricks, one from the debris. You should leave almost nothing dry - rigid bodies without dust. You can put some on the foreground and background too.

fireknght2
01-20-2012, 06:02 PM
Very impressive work, I would say its one of the best I have seen yet. Does the use of more sims increase rendering time or does it make it faster and allow one too put it all together in post?

Rich


I've been playing it safe for the past few months, posting tests on my Vimeo page but never putting it up here for critiques. Mostly it's because nothing is ever quite 'perfect' and worth showcasing but I am pretty happy with the result of my latest experiment.

Dust emitting from a broken brick fragments as a wall crumbles.
http://vimeo.com/35358901

PexElroy
02-02-2012, 07:15 PM
Wait for fume 3.0 ;)
Me too - any news on 3.0 , or what it may offer ?


@ fireknght2 - the more Fume sims we do, the longer it will take - based on the sim settings. The more layers used, the more realistic the final shot is, if composited right, and often offers more control + visual depth.

FabianB
02-03-2012, 06:46 AM
Me too - any news on 3.0 , or what it may offer ?


I don't think there is a release date, yet. All I can say is it's pretty awesome!
You will get much more control over your sim.

mcflait
02-03-2012, 03:49 PM
Very Good evening friends! I have a question, I have to do to a character type fire something super saiyan from Dragon Ball and the truth is that I can not think as a good way to do it, the first thing I thought is FumeFX obviously do not know if I can you say some way by which I may go with FumeFX, because with smoke I can not control exactly how I want the aura around my character, I admit suggestions, thanks.

Ash007
02-03-2012, 06:03 PM
A animated texture map should work, just black and white. The white parts will burn, the black parts not.
Go in FumeFX Obj/Src under the Fuel/Temperature/Smoke (whatever you need) map choose "Intensity" and throw the material in the map chanel.
Just make the "silhouette" of the character white, let the smoke and fire rise and it should work.

Daniel-B
02-03-2012, 11:27 PM
Anyone have any good methods or tricks for generating Fume clouds? Preferably, the white puffy kind. I've got a nice method going, but I'd love to hear alternatives. Anyone have any scene file examples or methods?

JohnnyRandom
02-03-2012, 11:41 PM
I think you are looking at seriously monster scale sims. I think possibly more cost/time effective would only use Fume to drive some soft motion of an pflow/afterburn system.

I have messed around with lake of clouds type effect and I haven't got nearly enough patience/horsepower to let it run.

EDIT: Hmm, this may actually even work better if you were to sculpt the path and run a low density realflow/naiad sim and try using that as a driver for either Fume or Aburn. LOL I am thinking timelapse style though...

Daniel-B
02-05-2012, 08:07 AM
Speaking of clouds. If you look at a lot of cloud formations, you will notice the top is more bubbly and round, however, the bottom of a cloud is relatively flatish. Does anyone know how to set up a sim where you could get a big rolling top of a cloud, but still keep the sim at the bottom flat? I tried some flat geometry to block it, but it read as such.

I'd really love any advise on that. Here is what I have so far on the top...

http://i.imgur.com/UY7Jp.png

Glacierise
02-05-2012, 08:30 AM
Maybe a drag spacewarp limited to the bottom?

kogden
02-05-2012, 10:05 AM
I like the drag idea that could give a nice result!
What was the collision method you used for the flat mesh at the bottom?
Maybe consider "freeflow" with some light temp and light extra velocity to push it flat, the plane and the temp/vel will affect the sim, but it will allow the fluid to pass through the geometry, so you might end up wit a more natural looking flatness, instead of a dead flat collision based on the geometry?

Keen to see some result when you done too!

Hope that can help!

Kieran

Mokiki
02-05-2012, 10:53 AM
Any of you guys has experience with recreating something like this in Fume?

Example_1 (http://www.thunderstruck.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/tornadoes3.jpg)
Example_2 (http://dave.csonka.net/gallery/d/69-2/super_cell.jpg)

Cryptite
02-06-2012, 06:08 PM
Looks like we're never gonna stop trying to up the scale of things we do in Fume, huh? :beer:

Mokiki
02-06-2012, 06:23 PM
Looks like we're never gonna stop trying to up the scale of things we do in Fume, huh? :beer:

That would be boring :P

Ash007
02-07-2012, 11:14 AM
Any of you guys has experience with recreating something like this in Fume?

Example_1 (http://www.thunderstruck.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/tornadoes3.jpg)
Example_2 (http://dave.csonka.net/gallery/d/69-2/super_cell.jpg)

I would say, use Pflow to create the tornado movement, there are many tutorials out there, and then let smoke emitt from the particles. Use Wavelet turbulence for a better result.

JohnnyRandom
02-07-2012, 05:42 PM
Any of you guys has experience with recreating something like this in Fume?

Example_1 (http://www.thunderstruck.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/tornadoes3.jpg)
Example_2 (http://dave.csonka.net/gallery/d/69-2/super_cell.jpg)

Wonderful refs :) I myself have not tried something of that scale, only because of hardware requirements, I am pretty sure it could be done, it would definitely push the limit and be a piece to be proud of :)

If I were to give it a go, for my first go at it, since it is already a developed effect and not one that is starting from birth, I would modelling a few pieces of emitter geometry, animate them, and throw some emission maps on them and see how that goes.

Creating something like that from birth, achieving and maintaining the integrity of those wonderful shapes and structure would be difficult at best. It would more than certainly require a particle based approach, which is inherently heavy in itself with regards to Fume.

Mokiki
02-07-2012, 06:05 PM
To keep things much more simple I'll first try to recreate one of the images. If I can manage that I can always go ahead and try to birth it during the shot.

Currently I'm trying to use particle as emitter but have collision objects around to create the smooth parts but sadly they get too smooth ur loose the detail when working with a simple noise modifier. Oh well it wouldn't be fun if it was that simple.

Another Ref
Example_3 (http://s11.postimage.org/9zuwgg183/mood_nado.png)

DanFX
02-08-2012, 03:28 AM
I was asked to do some clouds for a recent project. I basically set up a plane with a noise map and used an object source with the noise in the fuel and temperature emission. It's set up like an explosion with the fire burning off instantly creating the billowy smoke on top, and the buoyancy keeps the bottom relatively flat with the expansion keeping the bottom from being too flat.

I had run into a problem where you could see where the emitter plane was in the sim, so I scaled the plane down over the course of the simulation, just 5-10%, but it gave the cloud enough room to cover up the emission point.

Best part is that you can get tons of different results quickly by changing the noise pattern and how long you let it sim.

Some results:

1000ft-Cloud-Test_03.jpg (http://www.danchamberlin3d.com/jpegs/cloud-tests/1000ft-cloud-test_03.jpg)
1000ft-Cloud-Test_05.jpg (http://www.danchamberlin3d.com/jpegs/cloud-tests/1000ft-cloud-test_05.jpg)
1000ft-Cloud-Test_07.jpg (http://www.danchamberlin3d.com/jpegs/cloud-tests/1000ft-cloud-test_07.jpg)
1000ft-Cloud-Test_09.jpg (http://www.danchamberlin3d.com/jpegs/cloud-tests/1000ft-cloud-test_09.jpg)

Cloud-Breakdown.jpg (http://www.danchamberlin3d.com/jpegs/cloud-tests/cloud-breakdown.jpg)

-Dan

fireknght2
02-08-2012, 03:48 AM
Very nice Clouds thanks for sharing the settings as well.

Rich

JohnnyRandom
02-08-2012, 04:16 AM
Some results:

1000ft-Cloud-Test_03.jpg (http://www.danchamberlin3d.com/jpegs/cloud-tests/1000ft-cloud-test_03.jpg)
1000ft-Cloud-Test_05.jpg (http://www.danchamberlin3d.com/jpegs/cloud-tests/1000ft-cloud-test_05.jpg)
1000ft-Cloud-Test_07.jpg (http://www.danchamberlin3d.com/jpegs/cloud-tests/1000ft-cloud-test_07.jpg)
1000ft-Cloud-Test_09.jpg (http://www.danchamberlin3d.com/jpegs/cloud-tests/1000ft-cloud-test_09.jpg)

Cloud-Breakdown.jpg (http://www.danchamberlin3d.com/jpegs/cloud-tests/cloud-breakdown.jpg)

-Dan

Bling-bling-bling we have a winner ;) :D

Thought I would add that first one is A f'n + :thumbsup:

Mokiki
02-08-2012, 08:44 AM
Dan thanks for the pictures and the breakdown this will surely come in handy. Your results look really sweet. Will post some of mine too if I get anything worthwhile :P

Daniel-B
02-08-2012, 10:18 PM
I was asked to do some clouds for a recent project. I basically set up a plane with a noise map and used an object source with the noise in the fuel and temperature emission. It's set up like an explosion with the fire burning off instantly creating the billowy smoke on top, and the buoyancy keeps the bottom relatively flat with the expansion keeping the bottom from being too flat.

I had run into a problem where you could see where the emitter plane was in the sim, so I scaled the plane down over the course of the simulation, just 5-10%, but it gave the cloud enough room to cover up the emission point.

Best part is that you can get tons of different results quickly by changing the noise pattern and how long you let it sim.


Dan, very cool stuff. I've been building blobby sphere emission geometry, and attaching particle emitters to the surface, and letting them create the main puffs. I then add just a touch (very small) of velocity to the particles to stir up the smoke. Then, I add just a kiss of turbulence to break it up a bit. I'd be interested to try your solution.

EDIT: Not a bad method, Dan, not bad at all!

http://i.imgur.com/YULvi.jpg

Cryptite
02-09-2012, 05:43 PM
Looks like we have a Cloud-off in the works!

Edit: I think Dan's clouds look meaner.

turas29
02-10-2012, 12:53 PM
Hi guys I want to show you my sim of fire. I am working on my thesis now, and it's my first simulation. Tell me what you think or maybe some advice would be appreciate. THX

http://vimeo.com/36160649

visualchaosfx
02-10-2012, 03:27 PM
I have a FumeFX animation that I have been tinkering round with. I got the explosion to look the way I like it. Towards the end of the sim the smoke dissapates (SP?). When I go to render scene everything looks good up until the latter part of the animation. It calculates Mutiple Scattering and crashes. Any idea whats up? I'm using the default scanline render.

Glacierise
02-10-2012, 03:34 PM
What shadow type are you using? If it's the AB Shadow map, try changing to the standard max atmospheric shadows.

visualchaosfx
02-10-2012, 03:48 PM
Thanks for the quick reply man. I am using Shadow Map with Atmosphere Shadows enabled.

Glacierise
02-10-2012, 04:32 PM
Try with the AB shadows then, if you have them. Otherwise, try tweaking the settings of the lighting in FFX - turn off the scattering, decrease the step size.

visualchaosfx
02-10-2012, 04:45 PM
heh I don't have AB shadows. But thank you. Disabling Multiple Scattering works but the plume of smoke isn't illuminated during the intial explosion.

NahuelL
02-10-2012, 04:47 PM
Maybe you can try merging fume into another scene?

visualchaosfx
02-10-2012, 05:01 PM
I think I have a temporary work around for it. I disabled multiple scattering and added a Omni light in there and animated it to correspond with the expansion of the plume of smoke so that I can get some illunmination in there from the fire that burns out over time. Seems to be working. Thanks for the help guys :)

PexElroy
02-13-2012, 04:46 PM
@ visualchaosfx - looks good. you could also, in the PFlow setup, do a Split Amount by %, and have a few go off into sparks and embers or fuel, to give it a little more chaos. or use some noise controllers too, on the fuel or the temperatures -- to give the fuel more chaotic motion - nice work.