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

troxxy
02-21-2012, 01:47 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.

the only way i get to solve this is to animate the fire illumination to 0 after the fire distinguished.

Daniel-B
02-22-2012, 03:05 PM
Are there ANY hints on when we might see Fume 3.0, or at least a list of features? Their website says "Around the corner" and has for a couple of months, but that doesn't mean anything for specifics.

JohnnyRandom
02-22-2012, 03:09 PM
Patience young Jedi, it will be worth the wait, that is all I can say

FOLLYX
02-22-2012, 03:36 PM
today I got a mail from Kresimir Tkalcec (team of Sitni Sati) and he wrote my also nothing new:
"should be announced soon".

exblow
02-22-2012, 09:16 PM
hi! i'm not sure i'm on the right forum but anyway, if someone can help me i'll be happy!
all right my question is simple: i'm trying to do a nice smoke from a moving directionnal source, but my smoke has some repetitive forms while moving, and i want a long smooth non reptitive trail.
can someone tell me wich one from all the modifiers in the UI panel i need to move to avoid this kind of repetitive effect

(see attachement)



thanks a lot!

NahuelL
02-22-2012, 09:26 PM
Hi,

You can set Object's (velocity) to 0 and also add some turbulence to break it up (either simpleSrc turbulence or fume turbulence)

Hope that helps
Nahuel

JohnnyRandom
02-22-2012, 10:00 PM
Looks like a result of not enough simulation steps, too much directional velocity from your source object, too much vorticity and too fast a moving object for the conditions you have set. As good a guess as I can do.

Lower your Vorticity, change the source velocity, lower the CFL condition and add more simulation steps, try adjusting the time scale, change the animation speed of the emitter. A couple of things you can try anyway.

exblow
02-22-2012, 11:25 PM
awesome! that was the simulation steps!! thanks guys!

THarland
02-25-2012, 08:37 PM
Anyone thought of a way to convert Field3D data into a FumeFX cache?
I was daydreaming of rendering Naiad gas simulations in FumeFX just now and thought i'd ask. :D

NahuelL
02-25-2012, 09:28 PM
I don't think that's possible right now. What you can do is render Naiad particles as voxels with Krakatoa, it would look pretty similar to fume.

JohnnyRandom
02-25-2012, 10:53 PM
I have been wanting to play with that 30 day trail but don't want to burn it up until I have some good time to play with it :)

Can't you export EMP to PRT from naiad? EMp contains Field data doesn't it? If that is the case you could certainly have not a direct link to Fume but at least you could use it as a driver with EMP-> PRT-> TP/Pflow-> Fume.

THarland
02-26-2012, 12:28 AM
I don't think that's possible right now.Exotic Matter has a solution for Houdini (Linux only right now). Since I read about people taking FFX sims into Maya I feel like someone out there must have tried it. I imagine if the .fxd format was known then a utility could be written in C++ that could handle a batch conversion from Field3D. For Houdini they wrote a Field3D node but interoperability with FFX wouldn't work directly without Kresimir making it so; unless there's an SDK that I don't know about.

Can't you export EMP to PRT from naiad? EMp contains Field data doesn't it? If that is the case you could certainly have not a direct link to Fume but at least you could use it as a driver with EMP-> PRT-> TP/Pflow-> Fume.You can load PRT from Naiad and drive another sim with particles but it wouldn't be the same. I'd like to see a direct render. FumeFX's shader looks nicer than Houdini's in my humble opinion.

JohnnyRandom
02-26-2012, 01:11 AM
Ahh, ok, sorry I misunderstood. Yeah they (exoctic matter) would need to get the Fume SDK, that is what the Thinkbox guys did for the Krakatoa integration. Again you already knew all that :)

Daniel-B
02-26-2012, 02:47 AM
Hey, guys. Doing some research on flames/explosions. I was reading about the Turbulence FD fluid plugin, and noticed they have a a physically based fire shader that determines color based on "Black body radiation" See their description here...

http://www.jawset.com/


Upon, further research on Wikipedia,it appears black body radiation is responsible for the majority of determining a fire's color in real life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flame#Flame_color) . Does anyone have any examples of this type of shading, or know any other fluid solvers that used this black body radiation? I sure wish Fume had an option for this type of shading.

entrancea
03-02-2012, 11:29 AM
Hey guys...Happy New Year to you all..Its been a long time since I've been here...Right sooooooo...Its time to get this site going again.... http://fumefx.org/ Me and my mate set it up a long time back...so anyone interested just jump in and start sharing the wealth...cheers Mates!! :bounce:

Junaidishtar
03-05-2012, 06:14 PM
Hi All,

Does FumeFx Retime function also changes the time line of the simulation? Let say before i use Retime i have 100 frames of simulation so after i do Retime would it change the time line to 200 frames or so?

thanks

Daniel-B
03-05-2012, 08:50 PM
Hi All,

Does FumeFx Retime function also changes the time line of the simulation? Let say before i use Retime i have 100 frames of simulation so after i do Retime would it change the time line to 200 frames or so?

thanks

Yes, I believe you do.

Junaidishtar
03-05-2012, 09:17 PM
Yes, I believe you do.

Thanks man. I thought it only slows down the whole thing without changing the number of frames.

AdrienSliver
03-06-2012, 07:52 AM
Hey, guys. Doing some research on flames/explosions. I was reading about the Turbulence FD fluid plugin, and noticed they have a a physically based fire shader that determines color based on "Black body radiation" See their description here...

http://www.jawset.com/


Upon, further research on Wikipedia,it appears black body radiation is responsible for the majority of determining a fire's color in real life . Does anyone have any examples of this type of shading, or know any other fluid solvers that used this black body radiation? I sure wish Fume had an option for this type of shading.

I'm late, but very interesting analysis of fire shader, thank you Daniel

Daniel-B
03-06-2012, 02:51 PM
I'm late, but very interesting analysis of fire shader, thank you Daniel

Yes, I had never known that. It's very interesting. I haven't seen any concrete side by side examples of fire shaders with and without black body shading, but it sounds like the way to go for shading.

According to Fume's manual, it is shaded as follows...

"This color gradient corresponds to the amount of fuel still left to burn. The gradient, from left to right along an X-axis, coincides with an increase from minimum to maximum amount of unburned fuel."

Now, I don't know much about the physics of real life fire, but I would have thought it would be shaded on density or temperature. If Fume 3.0 had shading based on black body radiation, temperature, and other things, I would be pleased indeed.

AdrienSliver
03-06-2012, 02:57 PM
If Fume 3.0 had shading based on black body radiation, temperature, and other things, I would be pleased indeed.

It will be great, I am completely agree with. I don't know if it's possible only with FumeFX but someone have any idea how to create this complex shader of explosion with black area : http://uppix.3dvf.com/images/explosions.jpg

Daniel-B
03-06-2012, 07:08 PM
I have been trying to create absolutely photo real explosions in Fume off and on for a year now. I have looked at many CG explosions all across the web and never seen one I would mistake for the real thing. Now, with standing flames or smoke, I think you can make them indistinguishable from reality.

I don't know if absolutely photo real explosions are possible right now, they may well be. It could be I'm not using a proper technique, the fluid algorithms, the shading, or a combination of all those, and not introducing enough chaos into the sim.

This is the best CG explosion I've ever been able to make, but I feel there is alot of room for improvement...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIGChvv2iPg&list=UUf2UVMAUbiUNTuRQo7Gl6RA&index=1&feature=plcp

AdrienSliver
03-07-2012, 10:53 AM
Really Nice CG explosion !

I look forward to seeing FumeFX 3 :cool:

Cryptite
03-07-2012, 01:20 PM
Seems to me like achieving a photoreal Fume FX explosion would be a miracle of perfect settings and extremely complex keyframing of everything from sim settings (which most of us already do) to the fire gradient itself.

I agree with Pixel, though, in that I have never been fooled by a CG explosion before. Every other volumetric effect has probably been nailed by the industry as a whole, but the combination of elements it takes to emulate the chaos of an explosion is pretty nightmarish.

Funny thing is I've seen CG explosions who either have the perfect shape, the perfect motion, or the near-perfect shader, but none of them have ever had all three at the same time. Achieving that is key, and I'm very curious how, if at all, the gradient systems are different in FFX3.

jdrouse
03-08-2012, 05:40 PM
Do I need sources turned on for proper WT uprezzing? If you say no, I challenge you to try it. And then explain how!

I'm trying to take a default sim and add wavelet but I don't want to have the sources on.
My default sim has ALL channels saved.

However, WT ignores smoke, fuel and fire. So basically it isn't working and I'm getting nothing visible.

The real reason I can't use sources is that I simmed the default cache and used a middle frame as an initial frame so I cannot recreate my scene precisely with sources for WT.

Thanks for any incite!

-John

JohnnyRandom
03-08-2012, 06:32 PM
Yeah but your are still running a simulation, in fact it is called a Wavelet Simulation, the only difference it just has some precalculated data. I would expect that if I turned of a source that it would not show up.

If anything the bug here is that when you turn the source off it still calculates velocity it should calculate nothing.

I will ask about it though.

EDIT: Will this also gives me the thought you could use off sources velocity for blending different colored grids properly in post, since you do have the velocity from one or the other could be useful from that perspective. :shrug:

SoLiTuDe
03-08-2012, 07:53 PM
Sounds like a simple oversight to me. Since it's already cached to disk, there should be no need for the sources to be present when upressing.

JohnnyRandom
03-08-2012, 08:32 PM
If anything you are right.

Wouldn't it be nice too be able to leave a source out if you wanted too? Just gives me some ideas

jdrouse
03-10-2012, 01:11 AM
John,
Can FFXBBQ do a pick up and "continue" a previous incomplete sim? Perhaps for a next version if and when. For instance, I ran a sim and 50% WT overnight, came back in the morning, killed it all. Tonight I want to pick up the WT 50% thru, post and render. But there is no function for that. Super great script. I use it all the time.

-John Rouse

JohnnyRandom
03-10-2012, 03:44 AM
Good to hear, thanks :)

Hmm no, sorry, there is a hack-around to confirm the dialog confirmation. We will have to see if it that specifically gets fixed in Fume 3.0. If not I'll try and to work.

I will add that to the to do list. There are a few other options people have requested too.

Daniel-B
03-11-2012, 04:55 AM
I will add that to the to do list. There are a few other options people have requested too.

A request list? I have a couple. Namely better fire gradient controls, such as black body radiation or by temperature. :)

NahuelL
03-11-2012, 11:48 AM
Daniel, you can have a gradient by Temperature. Just make sure you export Temperature channel. The Temperature channel has a lot more detail as you can see in the video below (but if you sim, Fire, Smoke & Temp, you can see that the temp sim is different than the "fire & smoke" one.
Here is a test I did a while ago (explosion shaded by temperature)
http://vimeo.com/29408206

AdrienSliver
03-11-2012, 12:41 PM
Very interesting NahuelL thanks i'm going to test this method

Daniel-B
03-11-2012, 06:54 PM
Daniel, you can have a gradient by Temperature. Just make sure you export Temperature channel. The Temperature channel has a lot more detail as you can see in the video below (but if you sim, Fire, Smoke & Temp, you can see that the temp sim is different than the "fire & smoke" one.
Here is a test I did a while ago (explosion shaded by temperature)
http://vimeo.com/29408206


Nahuel, I did indeed know about that, but the orange part is not self illuminating nor does it behave like fire, is that correct? I assume you cannot light smoke internally with it? I will experiment with it and see what I can come up with.

NahuelL
03-11-2012, 08:34 PM
Yes, that's correct. You're not using the Temperature gradient on the actual fire/smoke sim. It just renders the temperature channel and allows you to shade it.

Vorselon
03-12-2012, 07:23 PM
Greetings everyone.

Some of my FumeFX experiments:

http://vimeo.com/31683698
http://vimeo.com/32028432
http://vimeo.com/33478005
http://vimeo.com/38301463 (Contains also scene files if interested.)

Suggestions and critique are always welcome.

JohnnyRandom
03-15-2012, 02:21 PM
A little bit of Voxel Porn for your Thursday morning/afternoon/evening :)

http://vimeo.com/38571506

Daniel-B
03-15-2012, 02:50 PM
Pretty cool, but I wish they would at least announce the new features already. The wait is killing me.

JohnnyRandom
03-15-2012, 04:18 PM
Hint: there is something new in there that you haven't seen yet near the end. That is all I can say.

fireknght2
03-15-2012, 07:49 PM
Nice are they adding Layers?

JohnnyRandom
03-15-2012, 08:12 PM
No, the best I can do is "think locally" ;)

Daniel-B
03-15-2012, 08:23 PM
It looks like the fire at the end is extinguished using the gradient. Perhaps you can control fuel by gradients. Kinda neat I guess.

JohnnyRandom
03-15-2012, 11:13 PM
You can't pry it from me, sorry you'll have to wait. I'll post another test later, maybe this weekend, as long as I don't get in trouble that is.

Daniel-B
03-15-2012, 11:21 PM
You can't pry it from me, sorry you'll have to wait. I'll post another test later, maybe this weekend, as long as I don't get in trouble that is.

I understand you can't say anything, that's cool. :) I'm just speculating out loud.

SoLiTuDe
03-16-2012, 01:48 AM
Lol whatever it is I bet you can already do it Houdini. ...just slower. :)

jigu
03-16-2012, 04:34 AM
Lol whatever it is I bet you can already do it Houdini. ...just slower. :)

Ian, are you completely moved to Houdini? :) How do you find it compare to max?

SoLiTuDe
03-16-2012, 05:29 AM
Ian, are you completely moved to Houdini? :) How do you find it compare to max?

Yup. At work I use Houdini, and as a result have no use for Max, atm. I find thinking particles much better to work with for rbds (workflow,and speed), and fume much faster to iterate (sim times are great, as are render times).
As for Houdini I absolutely love the workflow and control you can get with it. I could say so many things, but since this is the fume thread I'll stick with talking about PyroFx. :) Most people won't believe me when I say it's actually not all that difficult to start using. I find that you rarely have to go into the low-level stuff for the PyroFx, unless you need to some something really fancy. For most things, you can use it a lot like fume -- pick your sources, change some settings, and wait for sims to come back. Post-Sim is a whole other world too. They also have some really nice tools for working with volumes since the volume tools aren't just for pyro simulations. Houdini 12 is MUCH faster than 11, and much better to work with so far. They also changed some workflow things that make a bit more sense, and should be easier to pick up. Rendering is slow compared to fume, but I'm not an expert with mantra, and at work we use renderman anyway. Still though, fume is really fast for renders.

I really want to make some tutorials at some point, but I just don't have time. :sad:

fireknght2
03-16-2012, 02:35 PM
No need to spill the beans... it's gonna look cool and work awesome by the looks of it.

Rich

JohnnyRandom
03-16-2012, 06:24 PM
I don't doubt that a bit, I have seen some absolutely amazing things, Harry (Houdini) himself would be impressed :)

Yup. At work I use Houdini, and as a result have no use for Max, atm.

Yep we miss your max'ability :( It is pretty quite around here now IMO

Good on ya though :) would love to use Houdini, I might start learning it someday, too many Time Vampires atm.

SoLiTuDe
03-16-2012, 07:28 PM
I don't doubt that a bit, I have seen some absolutely amazing things, Harry (Houdini) himself would be impressed :)



Yep we miss your max'ability :( It is pretty quite around here now IMO

Good on ya though :) would love to use Houdini, I might start learning it someday, too many Time Vampires atm.

Thx! I miss you guys too. awww. ;) It took me a while to pick it up and learn it, but I'm glad I did.

squabu
03-17-2012, 06:43 PM
hello,

I want to achieve a dry ice fog. I set a - value temperature, and a high smoke density, so that the fog sticks to the ground. The only problem that still remains is that my fog is too puffy, although I enabled fluid mapping to get a more liquid look liquid look, and put some turbulence in it.

I searched the forum, but no match till now. Any thoughts or hints are welcome^^

thx

Daniel-B
03-18-2012, 06:51 PM
New Fume 3.0 Feature. Pretty cool update to the preview window.

http://vimeo.com/38728267

He would have the Fire Gradient closed when that is what I'm most interested to see if there has been changes to. Ha.

J-Bond
03-18-2012, 08:17 PM
The more interesting - if they work on GPU accelerations for sim?
Houdini start to move in that direction.

Cryptite
03-20-2012, 03:20 PM
OOooh, color-per-source will be tremendous. All of us who tried the bomb-in-the-desert explosions can now mix all 25 different colored dust grids into one and have true blending between them, faaaaaantastic.

Daniel-B
03-20-2012, 03:46 PM
25 different colored dust grids into one and have true blending between them, faaaaaantastic.

Ha, 25? That seems a bit overkill for dust. Maybe 3-4.

FOLLYX
03-23-2012, 08:10 AM
Is there already a known date for the final release?

JohnnyRandom
03-23-2012, 02:24 PM
No specific date, we (beta) know as much as you and that is...soon :)

Daniel-B
03-23-2012, 02:45 PM
I wish they'd just announce all the new features, even if the plugin itself won't be out for another 3 months.

GOVernor451
03-23-2012, 06:19 PM
Hello all,

I'm looking for some advice on a render artifact i'm getting any time I use multiple scattering.

No MS:
http://extranet.spitzinc.com/download/public/creativemedia/FFX_no_spots.png

MS on:
http://extranet.spitzinc.com/download/public/creativemedia/FFX_spots.png

I'm getting this artifact regardless of the renderer or lighting setup I use. The only noteworthy thing I've found in my troubleshooting is that different light types produce a different pattern of white spots.

Any guidance is appreciated, as this is issue 100% repeatable for me (meaning I can't use MS at all)

max3d2008
03-24-2012, 10:17 AM
Hello all. I have a problem with smoke. My smoke is stops. I can't understand why this is happening. Maybe anyone know ?
Example (http://vimeo.com/39059325)

Glacierise
03-24-2012, 10:26 AM
Probably the temperature dissipates completely. Try adding some more temperature, after you stop emitting the smoke.

max3d2008
03-24-2012, 12:17 PM
Probably the temperature dissipates completely. Try adding some more temperature, after you stop emitting the smoke.
Thanks. I thought about it. Yes temperature is dissipate completely.

Aboubakr
03-24-2012, 08:55 PM
hi guys! ^^

any one get problem with smoke brightness at rendering ? is there a solution for it?

rafamathard
03-25-2012, 04:03 PM
hello,

I want to achieve a dry ice fog. I set a - value temperature, and a high smoke density, so that the fog sticks to the ground. The only problem that still remains is that my fog is too puffy, although I enabled fluid mapping to get a more liquid look liquid look, and put some turbulence in it.

I searched the forum, but no match till now. Any thoughts or hints are welcome^^

thx

maybe its the dissipation strenght or the smoke, also to make the smoke heavier you could decrease even more its boyanci (like -5)

JonathanFreisler
03-28-2012, 10:25 AM
*shameless plug*

Finally got my showreel together from the last year or so. Mainly showcasing working from Ghost Rider, and a bunch of other stuff. Bunch of fume stuff in there, Enjoy!

2011 VFX showreel (http://vimeo.com/39263280)

AdrienSliver
03-28-2012, 10:46 AM
Awesome reel, your work on fire is outstanding ! the wood framentation is so cool and perfect ! can you share some tips ? rayfire framentation voronoi wood splinters ? :-)

3ak
03-28-2012, 11:33 AM
*shameless plug*

Finally got my showreel together from the last year or so. Mainly showcasing working from Ghost Rider, and a bunch of other stuff. Bunch of fume stuff in there, Enjoy!

2011 VFX showreel (http://vimeo.com/39263280)

Really nice work on GR2!

fireknght2
03-28-2012, 01:45 PM
I third the motion Excellent Work!

Aboubakr
03-28-2012, 02:46 PM
2011 VFX showreel (http://vimeo.com/39263280)

awesome work :thumbsup:

Daniel-B
03-28-2012, 04:28 PM
Nice work on that reel, especially the fire. I know how hard it is to get a decent looking shader for photoreal flames. :)

JonathanFreisler
03-29-2012, 12:52 AM
Cheers guys! Thanks for all the kind words.

@ AdrienSliver
Nope, no RF. Using a very similar approach though. All was done in TP (there is a very quick breakdown at the end of the reel). I wish I had some veiwport captures of the sim, it has a LOT of stuff going on. Initial volume break (scaled to be similar to wood splinters) which was activated by point helpers, spreading fragmentation, sub fragging. Particles of fine splinters being generated along VB faces to give it detail and break the shape up. Lots of fine particle matter and sawdust. All of that with an animated displacement map running over it, while being on fire ha ha! With fume sims over it and used to drive particles. Took a while to get it all working, but its one of my favorite shots :D

jdrouse
03-29-2012, 01:10 AM
Hey Jonathan, fantastic work on GR. Especially for the stuff close to camera.

At :28 seconds what kind of comp and Fume switchery is going on to get such good looking sims so close to the camera. Whats your advice on that? Rendering a great looking normal grid on a card and applying it in comp? Simming a crazy large FFX grid? I just did a similar shot with a close up explosion and it was difficult to find a balance between close up distance and the wide angle large grid the blast starts at in the middle ground. Data set was huge and difficult to direct.

Real nice work all around.

JonathanFreisler
03-29-2012, 02:23 AM
@ jdrouse (http://forums.cgsociety.org/member.php?u=78434)

That particular shot was tricky, it was actually blending between two different shot takes... not that you can really tell. The wheel coming through at the end is a different take, and both had different camera tracks. For the skid towards camera (A side) I basically simmed that as high as I could, and then for the B side, I simmed a grid really close to camera and really high res and comped them both together rendering them as RGB to get them spatially to sit together.

I have a preview of the B side sim that I can show you. I'll re-post in a few hours with a link.

AdrienSliver
03-29-2012, 07:27 AM
@ JonathanFreisler, thank you for your reply, it's very interesting, displace for wood splinter is a nice trick. This is the second time I heard about this method and It seems to be the more realistic.

JonathanFreisler
03-29-2012, 01:04 PM
@ jdrouse

Right click save as this (www.jonathanfreisler.com/includes/CV_040_B-sim.avi) Its just a fume preview from one of the many sims/elements for the shot you asked about. I cant quite remember but I think I had about four in total to make up the various fire elements for that shot. Hope some of that helps :/

JohnnyRandom
03-29-2012, 07:37 PM
Nice work man :)

Piotrek255
03-31-2012, 03:26 PM
Hi, guys, for the past week i tried to create a specific effect for a project, i am very short on my deadline so i hope someone here could give me an answer or some tips.

heres what i have:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/40255604/wavelet.jpg

I am saving karatoa particles driven by fumefx smoke, and path deforming them so i can reuse this one animation in every of my paths ( i have about 5 in my scene, they are flying all over the place)

what i am after is a line i could control and make it fly with path deform with an inner texture looking like this:

http://colorburned.com/wp-content/uploads/glowing-light-effect-2.jpg

(something not solid, broken inside like smoke is working in itself, it should not deform too much lik ein my example)


Also, how to avoid repetitive patters in simulations like this? (tip of the emmiter, some smoke elements are going sideways in a repetitive pattern).



Do you have any ideas?

Glacierise
03-31-2012, 04:49 PM
Trick is that after you emit, you go to PFlow, create a small bunch of particles at the base and spawn from them, then you FFX Follow the spawned ones. You don't need a thin FFX sim, the spawning from a small area takes care for that.

Piotrek255
03-31-2012, 06:30 PM
Trick is that after you emit,
the fumefx sim with less spacing( becouse i dont need thin grid) ???

you go to PFlow, create a small bunch of particles at the base and spawn from them
I spawn some (about 10, 20, 200 ???) particles from some object attached to fume fx emiter?

, then you FFX Follow the spawned ones.
i dont use fumefx birth but only fume fx follow?

Thats how i understand it but i am doing something wrong:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/40255604/asfdgrhbte.jpg


Could you explain it some more please :bowdown: i am really mad i dont understand what you just explained because i could be sleeping more peacefully tonight :banghead:


PS:
i've dome some more tests, and i cant get rid of the repetition.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/40255604/puff.jpg

Glacierise
04-01-2012, 06:26 PM
Don't look at the FFX shader, look at your particles. Otherwise - the setup looks right. Make your PFSource icon small. Drop down the vorticity in FFX so you can get bigger shapes. You might put in some turbulence with a little strength and big scale, to get rid of the repetition.

Piotrek255
04-01-2012, 09:34 PM
oh, i understand now, so by spawning strands of particles from few particles at the base of emiter, and making them move by a low detailed fume fx smoke simulation (which is solid inside, but has curls and smoky motion), the particle strands created with spawning from few small places will give me this detailed texture inside. I will do more tests tomorrow :drool:

thanks for opening my mind to new possibilities with fume. :)

Glacierise
04-01-2012, 09:51 PM
Yeah, pretty much that's it :) Hope it gives you the result you need :)

Piotrek255
04-02-2012, 04:04 PM
Hi, the technique you explained is super nice, but my particles die without a reason and dont continue on their smoke path, when i do fumefx follow velocity multiplier at 3.0 they go at longer distance along my smoke path, but are too fast.... i have done many tests with spawn and they looked very nice but the particles loose velocity quickly.

This is how far they go, after frame 20 they die (THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH DELETE NODE), sorry i had to caps lock that becouse it seems like an obvious reason :), i tried many versions of nodes and spawn settings, its still the same result, later on i will try making a more dense sim, maybe particles are catching only the smoke at the back.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/40255604/Untitled-1.jpg

kogden
04-03-2012, 05:08 PM
Hey!

Thought I would share my new VFX Reel;

http://vimeo.com/kobfx/2012

Mostly work from Ghostrider: Spirit of Vengeance, and Darksiders 2 Cinematics and some stuff from a low budget film I worked on in 2010.

Software: Max, Pflow, Box2, Fumefx, RealFlow, Frost, Nuke, Vray, Mental Ray

Enjoy!

Kieran!

AdrienSliver
04-03-2012, 05:52 PM
Very nice job Kieran , your works are awesome :beer:

Aboubakr
04-03-2012, 06:59 PM
Hey!

Thought I would share my new VFX Reel;

http://vimeo.com/kobfx/2012

Mostly work from Ghostrider: Spirit of Vengeance, and Darksiders 2 Cinematics and some stuff from a low budget film I worked on in 2010.

Software: Max, Pflow, Box2, Fumefx, RealFlow, Frost, Nuke, Vray, Mental Ray

Enjoy!

Kieran!

yeah i'm enjoying :beer:

jdrouse
04-03-2012, 10:25 PM
@JonathanFreisler

Hey thanks for the file! Sorry I forgot to thank you before! Very cool to see some raw data from finals. My shot looks of similar resolution + WT.

@Kieran

Bad ass work, man!

kogden
04-04-2012, 02:29 AM
@Aboubakr I'm glad you enjoyed watching it! :)

@AdrienSliver Thankyou!

@jdrouse Cheers Dude!

Glacierise
04-04-2012, 03:06 AM
Nice reel, Kieran!

@Piotrek: Check if you have 'kill particles when out of grid' in the follow node. That is the generally right path, I'm gonna check it out when I have more time.

Daniel-B
04-04-2012, 03:47 PM
New Fume FX 3 Feature.

http://vimeo.com/39759478

Aboubakr
04-04-2012, 04:34 PM
New Fume FX 3 Feature.

http://vimeo.com/39759478

cool :bounce:

Piotrek255
04-04-2012, 09:35 PM
Glacierise - they are not outside the grid, its like they have some invisible node which unables them to follow the smoke at static speed, instead, they loose speed and catch the back parts of the smoke trail, which vanishes very quickly. They should catch the front of the smoke trail, but they dont.

i will send you the file tomorrow when i'm at work

Piotrek255
04-05-2012, 10:50 AM
Glacierise - i send the file with the fume/pflow setup. The effect i am trying to get is a particle trail from few posts before. A great refference which showed up few days ago is this -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ok0M25mpJl8

the golden trails from the beggining are great, i wonder how to make something like this in fume + pflow

Daniel-B
04-05-2012, 06:26 PM
Some of you may remember a few weeks back I was talking about black body radiation being key in getting a nice looking fire (i.e. physically correct) fire shader in fluid sims.

Anyway, In this PDF, which I found interesting, they show Sony Imageworks implementation of this type of shading. The section starts on page 177 of the PDF, but covers several pages, including showing examples of an explosion sim with this type of shading on pages 182-186.

http://magnuswrenninge.com/content/pubs/ProductionVolumeRenderingSystems2011.pdf

EDIT: Fixed post for proper PDF page numbers.

AdrienSliver
04-05-2012, 06:55 PM
I remember your post about black body radiation and this .pdf is very very interesting, I have learn a lot of technique concept used at Weta, their fire shader is impressive, thank you Daniel.

Glacierise
04-06-2012, 06:45 AM
@Daniel:

Yeah, looks interesting, but obviously you need the pseudo component on top too. The implementation doesn't look too hard though - except the integral, it's something that you can do in Krakatoa :)

Daniel-B
04-06-2012, 02:50 PM
Last New Feature teaser video before FumeFX 3's release...

http://vimeo.com/39886817

Glacierise
04-06-2012, 06:56 PM
Effectors will completely change how we work with FFX. The opportunities really are endless! The fact that you can connect FFX params, and mask that with helpers or meshes, is huge. No longer will your whole sim have the same dissipation or vorticity for example - things that were making sims look too simple before. Now you can create so much more intricacies, I love it.

Daniel-B
04-06-2012, 07:37 PM
Ah, so I think I misunderstood. Effectors let you link the amount of say turbulence, to say, the temperature? So the hotter the area gets, the more turbulence it has? I was thinking this had to do with shading. But now I think I understand the possibilities. That's quite cool.

SoLiTuDe
04-06-2012, 07:43 PM
Ah, so I think I misunderstood. Effectors let you link the amount of say turbulence, to say, the temperature? So the hotter the area gets, the more turbulence it has? I was thinking this had to do with shading. But now I think I understand the possibilities. That's quite cool.

Sweet feature. They finally added in some of the extra control that Houdini has. :beer:

JohnnyRandom
04-06-2012, 09:46 PM
The last test I posted used a single effector to strip the color data and apply -10.0 gravity to any fluid that passed within the effectors bounds, that is most noticeable at the end when the effector passes over the fire.

Glacierise
04-06-2012, 09:52 PM
Ah, so I think I misunderstood. Effectors let you link the amount of say turbulence, to say, the temperature? So the hotter the area gets, the more turbulence it has? I was thinking this had to do with shading. But now I think I understand the possibilities. That's quite cool.

Yeah, and you can also mask it with an object, so it doesn't happen everywhere. It's quite a big step forward!

THarland
04-06-2012, 10:06 PM
I'm curious to know if you can use multiple effectors...?
This is all pretty exciting, can't wait.

Glacierise
04-06-2012, 11:07 PM
You can use up to two on a single channel I think.

THarland
04-07-2012, 12:14 AM
Definitely a game changer.

Daniel-B
04-07-2012, 02:00 AM
Sorry for the noobish question, but can the current version of Fume render with depth of field effects? If I wanted my foreground fire to be in focus, and my background fire out of focus, is that possible in render?

SoLiTuDe
04-07-2012, 02:25 AM
Sorry for the noobish question, but can the current version of Fume render with depth of field effects? If I wanted my foreground fire to be in focus, and my background fire out of focus, is that possible in render?

Yes, that shouldn't be a problem, however it's probably best to do it in post with zdepth.

Glacierise
04-07-2012, 02:31 AM
ZDepth with volumetrics is an inherently difficult issue, just because in with volumetrics you can't say at what depth a pixel is. So unless you render it as slices somehow, it's gonna be quite difficult.

JohnnyRandom
04-07-2012, 04:26 AM
Effector count has been unclamped, you can use as many as you like, just note that it takes more horsepower when you begin to include higher effector counts. I have only tested up to three and sim times where still good. This is also completely dependent upon what you want channels you want to effect.

For example effecting turbulence will bring your simulation times up significantly as compared to changing the fluids color.

THarland
04-07-2012, 04:49 AM
This is great...
So many possibilities. :deal:

Daniel-B
04-07-2012, 09:29 AM
Can you use effectors to shade the color of fire based on temperature? That's the closest approximation of black body radiation I can think of.

Raycat
04-07-2012, 10:42 AM
Hi all,
I'm currently struggling with FumeFX to try to imitate the fire-look of the image attached (the image is from a preview from a stock-site). It's a very stylized fire with smooth tendrils. Does anybody know if this is at all possible with FumeFX?
Since I only get the more gaseous/plasma look. Which is normal I guess since it is all about fluid dynamics.

Any tips are greatly appreciated!!
David

Glacierise
04-07-2012, 03:48 PM
Can you use effectors to shade the color of fire based on temperature? That's the closest approximation of black body radiation I can think of.

Yes - you can make temperature the input of a gradient and color - the output. And you can stack this with other effectors too!

Glacierise
04-07-2012, 03:49 PM
Hi all,
I'm currently struggling with FumeFX to try to imitate the fire-look of the image attached (the image is from a preview from a stock-site). It's a very stylized fire with smooth tendrils. Does anybody know if this is at all possible with FumeFX?
Since I only get the more gaseous/plasma look. Which is normal I guess since it is all about fluid dynamics.

Any tips are greatly appreciated!!
David

Getting this is mostly play with the shader - you'll need a sharp cutoff on both the left and right sides, from my experience.

Daniel-B
04-07-2012, 05:08 PM
RayCat, I made some fire that is somewhat visually similar I think. With some minor tweaking of the shader, I think you could get that look. Here is my Fume render with some color correction in After Effects.

http://i.imgur.com/5ZG1f.jpg

If you give me until later today, I can post my scene file somewhere and you can take a look at my settings. I do the color in After Effects using the Colorama effect set to "Fire" preset and then tweak the colors from there.

Raycat
04-07-2012, 06:53 PM
Glacierise> Thank you for the tip!

Raycat
04-07-2012, 06:56 PM
Daniel,

that would be great! The amount of parameters of FumeFX can be sometimes daunting, so it would be very handy to get a starting point. Thank you in advance!
A good tip to use AE for the color correction. I'm using FumeFX to create high res fire images but AE can help in the color correction anyway.
Now, if only those sims wouldn't take so long ;-) (rendering at 6400x4800 requires some hefty sims).

David

Daniel-B
04-07-2012, 08:02 PM
Daniel,

that would be great! The amount of parameters of FumeFX can be sometimes daunting...d

Indeed it can be, but actually Fume is rather user friendly, especially compared to the likes of Maya Fluids or Phoenix FD.

The trick with getting good looking fluid sims is understanding how the phenomena work in real life. Then you must try to get that level of chaos into the sim. Computers don't want to be chaotic. They are linear and non-chaotic by nature. That's why fluid sims often times don't look real. People don't add in the necessary variances in temperature, fuel, emission, etc to break up the linear-ness of the sim.

They try to do this with turbulence, but often times it just ends up looking like a readable noise field, and that's just as bad. I try not to introduce generic turbulence into my sim, except for a small amount to just break up the edges slightly. I never try to use turbulence to actually drive the fluid.

Raycat
04-07-2012, 08:36 PM
Daniel,
yes indeed, the border between realism and the uncanny valley is a small one.
FYI, the effect I asked earlier about is coming up well. Remember it's stylized fire, so the realism is a bit over the top... for once that is intentional ;-)

Raycat
04-08-2012, 05:41 AM
Does anybody know how to get rid of the hard edges inside the flames, I like to call them plasma lines.
I understand they are part of the fluid sim. I can not get them masked with the Color gradient. I'm trying to soften them with WT but that introduces other lines.... Anybody any ideas?
There is no vorticity, almost no advection and a little bit of noise to get the swirls in the flames, but those affect the entire flame (also the inside). It would be cool if there was a flame shape editor which determines the flame shape if no other forces influence the flame tendril....

FYI I'm still having fun with fumefx, fluid sims are a real challenge :cool: That is money good spent!

Piotrek255
04-10-2012, 08:57 PM
Hi, if thats ok i would like to refresh my question.

I managed to get interesting particle motion with pflow and fume, but my particles die without a reason and dont continue on their smoke path, when i set fumefx follow velocity multiplier in pflow at 3.0 they go at longer distance along my smoke path, but are faster than the smoke. I have done many tests with spawn and they looked very nice but the particles loose velocity and die quickly.

This has nothing to do with delete operator

particles are not leaving the grid (the image might suggest that but its a bad angle)


Its just like they loose velocity, they do not follow the smoke trail till the end, they follow at the start and lose velocity.

I need them to have the smoke motion with a lottle vorticity and follow a path.


http://dl.dropbox.com/u/40255604/Untitled-1.jpg


I will not bump this again, if no one has any ideas how to achieve such effect, then i guess i will have to try something else.

THarland
04-11-2012, 04:28 AM
I was reading through the Magnus Wrenninge section of the pdf Daniel-B posted and got to thinking that if FumeFX were to have the option of bypassing the rendering tab and fusionworks renderer all together and we were able to assign a shader such as the VRayGLSLMtl it would be possible to write our own black body shader or any other shader for that matter.
The GLSL should also open up the possibility of using the GPU for volumetric rendering.
(Direct particle rendering too but I digress.)
Vlado, meet Kreso... Kreso, meet Vlado... :D

PsychoSilence
04-11-2012, 04:50 AM
If only it'd be that "easy"...
Many collaborative features for many plugins were left behind because of "conflict of interest"...ChaosGroup has Phoenix...

THarland
04-11-2012, 05:06 AM
If only it'd be that "easy"...
Many collaborative features for many plugins were left behind because of "conflict of interest"...ChaosGroup has Phoenix...I know, I know... :sad:
And Sitni Sati already collaborates with Cebas but really...
Can't we all just get along?
Seriously though, things like this hold back technological advancement and hinder artists more than it helps them.
Besides, Phoenix doesn't even have the ability to implement this kind of thing with GLSL.

I'd like to see more developers with the attitude that Imageworks has with it's open source projects.
They don't have to collaborate per se...
Just open it up, let us do the work.

FlorinMocanu
04-11-2012, 02:25 PM
My latest personal work, i went for this large scale smoke plume kind of look, which can work for a volcano or a huge blast. I wanted to get this rolling, rising smoke effect.

Fumefx, rendered with Default scanline.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Y-4hLopOug&list=UU0DLT93rckpr6-UAJYR4-Fw&index=1&feature=plcp

SoLiTuDe
04-11-2012, 04:04 PM
How is this not in here already!?

FumeFX 3 is out:
http://afterworks.com/FumeFX/Overview.asp

Raycat
04-11-2012, 05:20 PM
Woehoe, looking forward to see if it is also faster than the current version.
Btw also nice new features ;-)

J-Bond
04-11-2012, 05:26 PM
Yes and for Maya will be released also).
I think Xsi version not far of(it may depend on when Phoenix FD put their plugin to Xsi) ;) . So now who have pipeline in Maya and working with max only because of fumefx, can now get rid off it.

JohnnyRandom
04-11-2012, 05:52 PM
How is this not in here already!?

FumeFX 3 is out:
http://afterworks.com/FumeFX/Overview.asp


LOL because you woke up earlier than I did :D

Mokiki
04-11-2012, 06:17 PM
Maybe a silly question but does fumefx 3 now work with vray dome lights in combination with vray hdris?

Daniel-B
04-11-2012, 06:52 PM
Is there a demo version of Fume 3.0 to try out?

Daniel-B
04-13-2012, 10:08 PM
Wow, did my question single handedly kill this thread? Heh. I thought you guys would be posting some sweet FumeFX 3 tests. :)

JohnnyRandom
04-14-2012, 12:06 AM
fR dome light works with Fume, don't know about vrays, there is not a demo version yet, I am stuck blowing smoke in 2.1 for the next couple of weeks.

PexElroy
04-14-2012, 07:04 PM
Nice... :twisted:

AdrienSliver
04-14-2012, 07:37 PM
fR dome light works with Fume, don't know about vrays, there is not a demo version yet, I am stuck blowing smoke in 2.1 for the next couple of weeks.

great news, it will be cool if it's work with vraydomelight :cool:

Mokiki
04-16-2012, 08:51 AM
Didn't fr dome lights already work fumefx 2.1?

Raycat
04-17-2012, 08:46 PM
Not directly related to the 3.0, but what is your highest resolution (in terms of pixels) you have taken a FumeFX-effect-rendering (and still looked good)?

I'm asking this since I'm really struggling to create high resolution stills of Fire.
For a simple fire-effect my grid is 900x1000x750 ("spacing of 0.2", and "Sim up to 42487MB"), with an added WT of 1,5 (grid size 1350x1500x1125). And I still see that the grid spacing is not fine enough (partial rectangular voxel shapes). The only way to mask it, is to up the Rendering jittering, but that blurs out the entire effect
Note that I render this at 4500x4500 pixels and it is a still (no animation, so no way I can get away with "motion blur" ;-) ).
Am I aiming too high? Is this not possible with FumeFX?
BTW I sim on an Intel i7 2,93GHZ (8 virtual cores) with 16GB of memory on Windows 7 64-bit.

Just would like to hear your experience with high resolution renders of FumeFX-effects...
Any suggestions are welcome and much appreciated.

Thank you.
David

JohnnyRandom
04-17-2012, 09:13 PM
I would guess to say that it is very shot specific. Still frames generally do look better with a very high resolution, simply for the fact that the individual can sit an stare at it for an unlimited amount of time. Hard to pick out minor blems at 24 fps unless you are frame cycling.

You can use the AFC curve to help reduce the noticeable voxels, this will only get so far but it can help, much like using the jitter value. You can treat it in post too, it is not that you only go so far as to look at the render but what can be done with the render, it is simply the first step, right?

Raycat
04-18-2012, 06:38 AM
Johnny thanks for the reply.
Indeed with animation you can "mask" some errors. A still and especially one at high res doesn't allow you to do that :sad:

AFC-tweaking solves a few issues, but a large part remains visible and is a real problem. Post is involved but not on that scale (I would have to rework approx 75% of the image).
I'm trying to get a little more detail into the sim by pushing my system. We'll see how it turns out. But to be honest, I'm not very optimistic. I'm afraid that this is not what FumeFX was intended for.

Another (slightly related) question: What type of system do you guys sim on? Is it comparable to mine ( Intel i7 2,93GHZ (8 virtual cores) with 16GB of memory on Windows 7 64-bit)or do you have some other recommendations (except more RAM and more CPU ;-) ).

David

FlorinMocanu
04-18-2012, 07:29 AM
Looking at how cheap RAM is right now, go for 32 GB. I plan to up from 16 to 32 myself in 1-2 weeks. And with 32 GB, you can really go nuts with fumefx.

I have the same type of system as you, I7 + 16 GB.

kogden
04-18-2012, 08:59 AM
@Raycat:

I don't think that 4.5k is totally out of the realm of what fume can produce, but, you are pushing the boundary a little. In saying that it might take some love on the comp side to help achieve what you're after....

I'd say that it would be benificial to have more ram, but if you go from 16gb to 32gb, but you'll almost quadruple the sim time depending on your settings... and then you get into a whole other level of dealing with fume, ie how the sim changes the higher density of voxels you go. Test render times etc... Depends on how much time you have to RnD that...

Also have you considered splitting the it up into multiple grides that overlap? Splitting it up vertically across the frame and make 4 or 5 containers may help get more voxel detail in.

But back to my first comment, I'd say comp is your answer ...
If its a still id guess you would have some time to polish the image in something like nuke/AE/Photshop. Not sure what you're comping in, but maybe have a look at idistort nodes in NUKE, or displace in after effects, or think the glass filter in photshop (i think its called that) this will help round out the jaggy voxels, pushed too far its looks like glass and make it a bit shit, but it can chill it out. Some post work like grading, and light glows might also help cover the voxel up a little.

Other then that, the rest does come down to RAM and AFC curve.

Hope that helps :)

Cheers Kieran

Raycat
04-18-2012, 09:27 AM
@ FlorinMocanu: Indeed, it seems a good time for upgrading my RAM. Have to look into it.

@ kieran: First of all thanks for the extensive reply.
I'll be looking into upgrading my RAM (I'm not entirely sure if I can upgrade it in my current machine, so maybe a new "FumeFX"-machine is on the horizon). So I hope to overcome some voxel issues and get more detail in it.
The reason why I'm a bit hesitant to extensive post is that I'm currently in an RnD-phase and the final production requires the creation a lot (+30) of high-res (even going up to 6.5 K) stills (of different sims) to be created, so extensive post work will lead to enormous production times. Adding glow and minor glitches will be solved in Photoshop. But I would like to avoid solving fundamental issues (not enough detail) in post production. Instead the render output should be good enough.
Also the final stills should be really sharp, and masking voxel problems often ends in some kind of "blurring".

Just that I'm understanding this correctly: with the AFC you mean the one for Opacity in the Rendering-tab, right?

Oh one other thing, I noticed that the 3.0 preview-window generates different results when choosing CPU or GPU. Does anybody know of a videocard that supports good previews? Does it depend on hardware-support for a certain type of directX shaders/version or CUDA, or...?

Thank you all for the help/information, guys! I really appreciate it!

Tollman
04-18-2012, 12:54 PM
We are in the middle of production with a couple of weeks to deadline, and looked forward to some features in fume3 to save us a lot of headache, but we need some info before we update our licenses to fume3.
My question is simply: is it possible to open up fume2 files in fume3? or do we have to redo the fume2 files in from scratch.

The features we want is the improved mr renderings (i read something about it on the afterworks site), since we need illumination from the fume and dont possess any other fancy renderers.

The other feature is the "fume recognizes its own movement" if the container itself is animated.

Have anyone tried these things out?

Thanks!

JohnnyRandom
04-19-2012, 04:40 AM
I'm afraid that this is not what FumeFX was intended for.

You'd be surprised what people can and do with fume :) I always am.


Another (slightly related) question: What type of system do you guys sim on? Is it comparable to mine ( Intel i7 2,93GHZ (8 virtual cores) with 16GB of memory on Windows 7 64-bit)or do you have some other recommendations (except more RAM and more CPU ;-) ).


IMHO your machine is "capable" but definitely on the lower end of a sim box, on the other end of the scale, dell dropped of a demo box the other day that I only had the priviledge of scoping the specs on, processor wise I was drooling dual 8 core xeons at 3.1ghz for a total of 32 physical and virtual cores! Boooyaah ram was a little slim at only 32gb, a quadro 5k, and a barely sufficient raid 0 ssd array, 3 256gb somewhere drives I was told, didn't catch the capacity for myself.

That said, I would consider 24gb of ram minimum, a few single tb drives, if single processor 6 cores minimum, duals well more is better only when the core speed is high, more lower ghz cores perform worse than fewer higher ghz cores.

Most of us tested the GPU preview with various mid to high end Quadros and upper GTX cards 480, 560, and 580's. A higher end card either pro or gamer will give your better performance.


Tollman, I only tested a few 2.1c scenes with 3.0 beta4 and they opened without issue. I have been working away from home for the final beta/rc stage of testing and didn't have the chane to check against the final. As with anything max, fume or not older scenes/setups can always be hit and miss.

Raycat
04-19-2012, 05:45 AM
Johnny, thanks for the feedback. I'm currently investigating the possibilities for a new machine. Because like you said my current PC isn't really up to the task that lies before me.
I'm taking your recommendations into consideration, and my budget :sad:

Thanks again!
David

JohnnyRandom
04-20-2012, 11:06 PM
I said it was "capable" :) at the very least drop in as much ram as will fit, that will help, you will just have to wait longer for it to sim. but you will go farther.

PsychoSilence
04-21-2012, 03:03 PM
I had good experience with prefab gaming rigs from newegg :) costs $1,100, outruns the little older workstation that once cost $4,000

AdrienSliver
04-21-2012, 09:25 PM
Hello guys, I have a problem with my Fumefx render (same problem with scanline and v-ray)

When a use a gamma 2.2 I have a little bit more smoke and details than 1. But, when I save my render in .exr or .png (format with alpha) you can see that I lost a lot of smoke. And when I save in .jpg without alpha I have more smoke but is not good for compositing.

Do you have an idea to help me ? Thank you a lot in advance.

I work on this personnal project : http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?p=7281060#post7281060

Exemple test :

Scene test file max 2012 : www.adrienrollet.com/files/gamma_fumefx.max

http://uppix.3dvf.com/images/b5nzy.jpg

http://uppix.3dvf.com/images/1IuUm.jpg

kaworuonline
04-23-2012, 01:31 PM
Hi everyone,
here is my first test of FumeFx & RayFire
http://192.168.0.102/photostation/api/get_file_api.php?sid=null&f=L1B1YmxpYy9zY3JlZW5DYXAuanBn
http://youtu.be/6DCP4rYpAbY

In this test,
I pack all debris object ONE BY ONE in Obj/Src tab, this process is boring and time consuming.
Is there any method to add all object which have to influence smoke as once in FumeFx?
I use 2.1a
Sorry for this dumb question:)

Cryptite
04-23-2012, 03:01 PM
When you save with the .jpg, the 2.2 gamma is probably being baked in, however if you're opening the png/exr in a compositing package, are you viewing the image in the proper color space or applying an sRGB gamut node to the file? If not, you're essentially just looking at the image in 1.0 color space. More than likely, your data is there, you're just not loading/viewing it properly.

What are you using to composit with?

AdrienSliver
04-23-2012, 03:13 PM
Hi Cryptite, thank you for reply, I use After Effects and I have tried to change color space to sRGB but anything was changing. In the PDplayer when I use colorspace : sRGB and I increase gamma to 2.2 my smoke is too bright not like the .jpg. So i need to use an gamma node ? (I don't know which). Did you have problem with fumefx and vray ?

With .jpg :

http://uppix.3dvf.com/images/glDML.jpg


With .exr :

http://uppix.3dvf.com/images/5Wp9.jpg

When I import my .exr/.png in After effects (I lost a lot os smoke details)

http://uppix.3dvf.com/images/7or9h.jpg

Cryptite
04-23-2012, 03:29 PM
I opened both a jpg and exr both in Fusion and AE and they looked the same. How are you saving the jpg's and the EXR's exactly? Can you show the settings you're using?

Seeing as your gamut settings appear to have the output gamma set as 2.2, you probably don't need to adjust your color space, in hindsight, so I don't think viewing color space is the issue anymore.

AdrienSliver
04-23-2012, 04:18 PM
I appreciate a lot your help, I hope my pictures can help you to see my problem.

My .exr settings

http://uppix.3dvf.com/images/ctsiG.jpg

My .png settings

http://uppix.3dvf.com/images/lcpeV.jpg

My .jpg settings

http://uppix.3dvf.com/images/WNzcA.jpg

Today I have change my smoke shader and for the same render with vray or scanline with a gamma of 1, I have this :

In my 3DSmax buffer :

http://uppix.3dvf.com/images/Qo9w8.jpg

This is my import .png in after effects :

http://uppix.3dvf.com/images/V2vUO.jpg

And this is my import .exr in after effects :

http://uppix.3dvf.com/images/zKWdu.jpg

I can use for compositing my .png over my .exr to have approximately the same result as 3DSmax buffer, but I think it isn't the good method.

http://uppix.3dvf.com/images/LAMXf.jpg

Cryptite
04-23-2012, 04:34 PM
I believe the fault is with After Effects trying to handle 32 bit full float EXR images.

Try this, Save your EXR as Half Float (16 bits/Channel), then in After Effects (with the regular color space, not sRGB), interpret the EXR footage as usual with the Straight - Unmatted alpha, but the key is tick on Preserve RGB in the Color Management tab. It's trying to apply linear light to the EXR sequence which appears to be muddying up the color for no apparent reason.

Hope that works.

Edit: I thought that worked, something went wrong though, still looking into it!

Edit2: I've tried almost all possible combinations, and unfortunately all I can say is After Effects just won't reproduce the same picture you'll see in your max render buffer. You can get close, but you'll probably have to adjust curves/levels to get the same-ish image. Perhaps now's a good time to learn Nuke or Fusion :surprised

Edit3: If you ignore the alpha, however, you get the proper colors. Your final alternative could be rendering the alpha out separate and importing it; could work.

AdrienSliver
04-23-2012, 04:59 PM
You're right Cryptite ! After Effects don't display the same as 3DS max buffer, and in Nuke my .exr is really the same :beer:

I'm learning Nuke since 1 week so I would like to composite my project with AE that I use since 2 years. But I think I will work for this project on Nuke. :)

About .exr you prefer : full float, half or integer ?

Cheers

Raycat
04-23-2012, 06:55 PM
@Raycat:
...
I'd say that it would be benificial to have more ram, but if you go from 16gb to 32gb, but you'll almost quadruple the sim time depending on your settings... and then you get into a whole other level of dealing with fume, ie how the sim changes the higher density of voxels you go. Test render times etc... Depends on how much time you have to RnD that...
...
Cheers Kieran

Hi Kieran,
I experienced today what you mentioned above. I was able to squeeze a very detailed grid from my 16Gb-machine and the fire behaved completely different from the slightly coarser draft-grid. It was if all the fuel was completely gone(only very small flames remained and very large bubbles of unburnt fuel). And the scale seemed larger (very large voxels). it seemed that the sim freaked out and resorted to large voxels (very coarse grid).. very strange...
I hope I can rectify and get decent high resolution results, otherwise a new machine won't do any good if I can't solve it...

Does anybody has any experience with FumeFX changing behavior drastically when simming very detailed grids, and what do you do to solve it?

Cryptite
04-23-2012, 07:50 PM
@AdrienSliver: I usually always work in 32 bit, since I know I'm losing the least amount of data. When it comes to packing in render elements through vray, though, you only really need full float data for passes like ZDepth, SamplerInfo, Velocity and things where you will have values outside the standard range of color (0-255). The other things are usually fine to leave at half float and you'll save yourself a ton of space by doing so.

JohnnyRandom
04-23-2012, 09:10 PM
Does anybody has any experience with FumeFX changing behavior drastically when simming very detailed grids, and what do you do to solve it?

Everyone whom uses fume does. ;)

There are two general methods (well there are more really but in this case)

1. Test sim at or very close to your final spacing. These results are predictable and well... you get what you pay for.

2. Sim a low res grid and wavelet. In the long run you can iterate faster but your final may take just as long since, in the end, the process takes two simulation steps to complete, your default pass and your wavelet pass. Also Wavelet has its own "look" that a standard sim does not have, which may or may not be desirable.

Raycat
04-23-2012, 09:28 PM
John,

I prefer the first method, because the wavelet has (as you mentioned) a certain look that I want to avoid (in this project). The only drawback is the long sim time :cry: (60 hours for 30 frames).
It's a pity really because the look I had was spot on, but a few steps of extra detail completely changed it and made me have to start over again, spending long sim hours...a bit frustrating.. but rewarding in the end (I hope).
So no matter what, I'm ordering a new machine to speed things up :cool:

Added: Is it a correct assumption that you can use a network-slave to sim but the sim can not be divided between several network slaves? So running a sim is always restricted to 1 machine. Just wanted to be sure that 3.0 hasn't changed anything.

kaworuonline
04-24-2012, 03:47 PM
Hi everyone,
here is my first test of FumeFx & RayFire
http://192.168.0.102/photostation/api/get_file_api.php?sid=null&f=L1B1YmxpYy9zY3JlZW5DYXAuanBn
http://youtu.be/6DCP4rYpAbY

As I want debris influence the movement of smoke,
I pick all debris one by one, it is really time consuming and painful
Is there any other method to add all objects as once ?
I use 2.1a
Sorry for this dumb question:)

AdrienSliver
04-24-2012, 08:31 PM
@Cryptite , I'm going to save my pass like you in 32 bits, in half float. :)
Thank you again for your help

Raycat
04-25-2012, 02:30 PM
At last, the new custom build "Fume" workstation is ordered. Now I have to wait 2 weeks and than FumeFX scaling will go "very" low ;-)

JohnnyRandom
04-27-2012, 12:17 AM
I pick all debris one by one, it is really time consuming and painful
Is there any other method to add all objects as once ?
I use 2.1a


Select all of the objects you want to add to Fume, then paste and run this snippet into the maxscript listener:

for i in selection do <FumeFX>.addSource i

Where <FumeFX> is exchange, with the name of your FumeFX container.

kaworuonline
04-27-2012, 07:58 AM
Select all of the objects you want to add to Fume, then paste and run this snippet into the maxscript listener:

for i in selection do <FumeFX>.addSource i

Where <FumeFX> is exchange, with the name of your FumeFX container.

Thx Johnny, i wil take a try:applause:

pauldublin
04-27-2012, 11:13 AM
Though there would have been lots of posts of cool Fume 3 stuff by now?!!

Daniel-B
04-27-2012, 03:37 PM
Though there would have been lots of posts of cool Fume 3 stuff by now?!!

I ran across this last night which I thought was pretty cool. One of the best fume explosions I've ever seen.

http://vimeo.com/41099191

Piotrek255
04-30-2012, 05:42 PM
Hi


can i somehow render the smoke with repetitive texture pattern?


So that when i would apply a evenly tiled grid (tiles) map, the smoke would look like made of a grid (which would be deformed with smoke motion)


When i would simulate smoke from wide rectangle with gravity vector in for example Y axis, without any turbulence, after some time i would see a clear grid pattern in the width of my rectangle emitter.


Is it possible with fume?

Raycat
05-01-2012, 12:35 PM
You can apply a pattern/map in the Rendering-tab.
For each effect (Smoke and Fire) you can assign a map and how you want to map it ("Map source"), this can be set to Fluid mapping (texture moves along with you smoke/fire) or World/Object coordinates which keeps it static.

I don't know if the above helps you, but if so please read up on it in the Help of FumeFX it's all described in there.

pauldublin
05-01-2012, 06:18 PM
I ran across this last night which I thought was pretty cool. One of the best fume explosions I've ever seen.

http://vimeo.com/41099191

Really nice sim there!

ahmedsheeraz
05-03-2012, 07:37 AM
hi all, have a question here. I have a smoke which starts pretty fast like oil field blast but as the smoke rises in sky, it should slows down. I simply can't dig this affect. If i animate time scale it effects the whole sim. I want my smoke to emit fast from source but as it rises, slow down due to air friction or whatever. I found that i can't use drag force in fumefx as it can do this effect. Any workaround???

Raycat
05-03-2012, 11:20 AM
I don't know if you tried it already, but you can define a range wherein the retimer is active. So you set that for example only frames 50-100 are affected by the timer. Thus if you animate the retimer in this range the frames outside this range will not be affected by the retimer.
This range is located in the same tab in the Retimer-section.

ahmedsheeraz
05-04-2012, 07:00 AM
I don't know if you tried it already, but you can define a range wherein the retimer is active. So you set that for example only frames 50-100 are affected by the timer. Thus if you animate the retimer in this range the frames outside this range will not be affected by the retimer.
This range is located in the same tab in the Retimer-section.
Retime will retime the whole sim i think, not only the smoke in sky. I think there is no real solution to it right now in fumefx. Its like if we were in pflow, we can add a condition to smoke that if smoke age is greater than lets say 100, slow down original speed to 50%.

Junaidishtar
05-09-2012, 01:25 AM
Retime will retime the whole sim i think, not only the smoke in sky. I think there is no real solution to it right now in fumefx. Its like if we were in pflow, we can add a condition to smoke that if smoke age is greater than lets say 100, slow down original speed to 50%.

I think it it has more to do with the smoke dissipation. when the smoke dissipates due to less temperature influence, it tends to disassociate itself with the previous flow of voxels.
you can also play with burn rate; lower the burn rate the more its gonna rise and more velocity you would see all the way to the top of your smoke/fire stack; try increasing it. same thing with the temperature.
also, if the source speed is too high you can also control the speed through velocity damping.. maybe a little bit.

rafamathard
05-10-2012, 01:09 PM
Can anyone tell me whats going on here? this has never happened before with my shadows. im using a omni with ray traced shadows and scanline render.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/16847473/whut.jpg

JohnnyRandom
05-10-2012, 03:32 PM
It looks like a standard Matte/Shadow material issue. Sorry, not sure how you can get rid of that in scanline. I would be interested to know too if someone has a solution.

fR with the standard Matte/Shadow does the same thing but using the fR Matte/Shadow mat the problem is gone.

Vray doesn't use a Matte/Shadow material but a Vray object property instead, I haven't seen this happen there.

rafamathard
05-10-2012, 03:54 PM
humm will look into that! thanks a lot

rafamathard
05-11-2012, 12:22 AM
Yeah, using matte material on vray seens to have fixed it! :applause:

floopyb
05-14-2012, 11:56 PM
Shameless self promotion warning!

Just finished my new reel and since it has heaps of fumeFX in it I thought I would share it with you guys:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5TQSFT80xY

Enjoy! :buttrock:

JohnnyRandom
05-15-2012, 02:04 AM
That's some good wholesome shameless self promotion...nice work man :D

AdrienSliver
05-15-2012, 08:37 AM
Awesome works on this reel, nice job. :buttrock:

ThallDesign
05-15-2012, 04:13 PM
Haha nice little extra shot at the end, jerk! Almost lost my coffee! Super impressive work though, I liked the buildup of that Sanctum shot where you added the head lamps.

AdrienSliver
05-16-2012, 07:12 AM
I don't know if you have already see this about Advection, very understandable : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ttggzmGHuY

Daniel-B
05-17-2012, 07:26 AM
Trying to get a photorealistic explosion in Fume. It's very difficult to nail. This is a low res grid test at 220x220x240. Still, I am please with the detail obtained at such a low voxel count. I will keep running more tests and run those at higher res. I am particularly pleased with the fire shader. Comment and Critique is very welcome. I would love to get this perfect, so any flaw, no matter how small, please point it out.


https://vimeo.com/42322439

Fele
05-17-2012, 08:20 PM
Hi Folks,

I am simulating buring fuel in a pipeline and the adaptive grid always stays at the maximum size because of the pipeline geometry (which is used as a pflow emitter), even after the voxels have disappered. Am I doing anything wrong or is this normal while working with geometry?

Best regards
Felix

rafamathard
05-18-2012, 11:34 PM
maybe its the temperature?

JackWatts
05-20-2012, 09:43 PM
Hi Folks,

I am simulating buring fuel in a pipeline and the adaptive grid always stays at the maximum size because of the pipeline geometry (which is used as a pflow emitter), even after the voxels have disappered. Am I doing anything wrong or is this normal while working with geometry?

Best regards
Felix

Hi Felix,

Im assuming that you have the entire pipeline geometry selected as your "position object emitter" within your particle system with particles emitting from the whole geometry and, your fume container is scaled to cover said geometry and that your geometry is selected in fume as a collision object. Because of this your adaptive grid will stay at maximum because based on your particle settings fume is recognising the whole geometry as an emmision source as well as an collision object which means that it needs to take it all into memory.

Two things you could do:

1: Adjust your sensitivity/threshold (named in v2/v3 respectively), try a value ranging from 15 to 30. This should keep the grid nice and tight to the geometry although as rafamathard said check your temperature, more precisley your temperature buoyancy.




2: Use "vol select" select modifier to precisely select what faces you want to emit from. Duplicate your geometry, break it up and make these duplicate parts non-renderable and use them to drive your fume sims and act as collision objects instead of the geometry as a whole.

There are other ways like possibly using multiple grids with mutiple geometry parts. Although it is a bit tricky to help you any further without having any sense of your scene set-up, as i don't know how complex and to what scale it is. If you want send me the scene file and i can have a look at it for you.

best,
J

ThallDesign
05-26-2012, 09:04 PM
When I add a particle source near Temperature, Fuel and Smoke there is a little box with PA next to it. If I have Temperature set to 6000 and tell that box to be an expression, and type "sinh(1.5)" minus the quotes in the Expression box, will it multiply 6000x1.5, and 6000x-1.5 in a sine wave pattern?

I am trying to fluctuate the temperature amount without manually keyframing.

JohnnyRandom
05-28-2012, 11:07 PM
When I add a particle source near Temperature, Fuel and Smoke there is a little box with PA next to it. If I have Temperature set to 6000 and tell that box to be an expression, and type "sinh(1.5)" minus the quotes in the Expression box, will it multiply 6000x1.5, and 6000x-1.5 in a sine wave pattern?

I am trying to fluctuate the temperature amount without manually keyframing.

I am not sure it will, expressions are a little weird and I have not really gotten any kind of tangible result out of them, of course I am also not the best person to try and use expressions either. I can get them to work moderately well in a trackview script controller but really never with Fume.

What I can explain is PA is for particle age and the value is on the AFC for the first value labeled "amount" to the second value on the other side of the AFC curve button + the obvious variance with the var. value.

When you enable the AFC curve by either clicking or right-clicking to enable it the "PA" is now enabled so for the course of the particles age (you need age/lifespan values in the particle system) your values will be evaluated as defined by the AFC curve.

For what you want I always add a waveform controller or two or three, plus a noise, and/or something new I learned drop them in a float list controller and blend by weights to the value it is much easier and totally visual.

JokerMartini
05-30-2012, 02:03 AM
What I'm wanting to do.
Generate smoke only on moving objects.

setup: 2 objects animated and 1 starts on frame 0 and another starts on frame 12. Is there a way to generate smoke on the object only when it is moving with using an Object FumeFX emitter and an expression on the Smoke Amount in the fumeFX dialog?

As of right now I'm doing the typical particle system setup with a velocity cuttoff on the particles to control the moving objects versus the static objects but ideally id like to just skip the particles all together and use the object source.
Anyone have any other solutions to this situation?

Aside from that has anyone used the expression control on the smoke amount? I'd love to see some examples of this, as i've searched the internet and have come up empty on an examples of how to use it and what to write.

Thanks

John

3ak
05-30-2012, 02:27 AM
Animate Active checkbox.
Or use float script controller on Smoke property and find if object moves.

Expressions are for voxels. imo there is no way to include some object data (pos, vel etc).

JokerMartini
05-30-2012, 02:41 AM
But what if there are multiple objects in the object list of the object smoke emitter?

Even if there is a way to animate vertex paint on an object to be black or white based on change in transform and then somehow have the smoke emitter only emit smoke on objects based on the black and white of the vertex paint of each object in the Object Emitter helper.

Glacierise
05-30-2012, 04:41 AM
What are you saying?! Skipping the particles never did much good for anybody :D

JokerMartini
05-30-2012, 02:08 PM
So what I'm trying to do is this.
Say for example you have a building that is crumbling from top to bottom.
As the pieces crumble and begin to fall you want them to generate smoke/dust. Right now my setup is using a particle system with a speed test which deletes the particle if it is not moving.
So as the object is falling it will generate smoke and then as it hits the ground and tumbles around it will eventually come to rest pose, which at that point in time it will not longer generate smoke.

However just for the sake of it being a simpler setup, I'd like to somehow figure out a way to just add the objects to the ffx "Object Emitter" source and have it generate smoke on the surface of those moving objects rather then the pivot of a particle. The result of the smoke being generated from the objects always looks better.
I've attached a max file with the example setup I use for particle systems. I'd love to get some other builds and concepts/ideas from other people on how they control this.

3ak
05-30-2012, 02:38 PM
So what I'm trying to do is this.
Say for example you have a building that is crumbling from top to bottom.
As the pieces crumble and begin to fall you want them to generate smoke/dust. Right now my setup is using a particle system with a speed test which deletes the particle if it is not moving.
So as the object is falling it will generate smoke and then as it hits the ground and tumbles around it will eventually come to rest pose, which at that point in time it will not longer generate smoke.

However just for the sake of it being a simpler setup, I'd like to somehow figure out a way to just add the objects to the ffx "Object Emitter" source and have it generate smoke on the surface of those moving objects rather then the pivot of a particle. The result of the smoke being generated from the objects always looks better.
I've attached a max file with the example setup I use for particle systems. I'd love to get some other builds and concepts/ideas from other people on how they control this.

I think particles is offering more control over your attribs and sim in overal.
As for delete on speed threshold - sometimes its not enough - equilibrium in the middle of the arc for example. i'd use time gradient of velocity for that.

Glacierise
05-30-2012, 03:48 PM
The thing is - you don't just want this one thing happening. You'll need to have emission when the break off, another emission when they are falling, a third one when they hit the ground - and with particles you can control all that - velocities, lifespans and whatnot. Anyway, just with an object source, you can use the effector in FFX3 to connect the velocity to smoke density.

Vorselon
05-30-2012, 03:55 PM
Greetings everyone.
Some of my FumeFX experiments:

https://vimeo.com/43107437

Image preview: http://i.imgur.com/M2i3L.jpg


http://vimeo.com/33478005

Image preview: http://i.imgur.com/rgOIm.jpg

http://vimeo.com/38301463 (Contains also scene files if interested.)

Image preview: http://i.imgur.com/VHTXZ.jpg

Suggestions and critique are always welcome.

JokerMartini
05-30-2012, 06:13 PM
Valid points guys. Thanks for the comments and explanation of things.

Daniel-B
05-30-2012, 08:26 PM
Did a little R&D on some launch smoke just for fun. I'm happy for a first draft, but it still needs some work.

Video link:
https://vimeo.com/43137096

Image preview: http://i.imgur.com/WM0P2.jpg

floopyb
05-31-2012, 07:14 AM
Getting some nice detail out of that Daniel!

floopyb
05-31-2012, 07:14 AM
oops, double post

Daniel-B
06-02-2012, 11:17 PM
Explosion I made in my never ending pursuit of photoreal digital pyro...

https://vimeo.com/43319446

And a still preview:

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

Glacierise
06-03-2012, 12:06 AM
Nice detail! One thing that I notice too much in these things - emission is too simple. All the fuel is emitted at once and burns out at once, which feels very unnatural. Having more emissions, with decreasing volume, spreaded further in time, would break that up and look better.

JokerMartini
06-03-2012, 01:28 AM
that is a good point Hristo
Do you have any examples of this? I'd like to see them.

Daniel-B
06-03-2012, 01:31 AM
Nice detail! One thing that I notice too much in these things - emission is too simple. All the fuel is emitted at once and burns out at once, which feels very unnatural. Having more emissions, with decreasing volume, spreaded further in time, would break that up and look better.

Indeed, I thought about that too. I'm trying to take it one step at a time, get that working, and then add another level of chaos on top of that. When I've tried juggling too many things like that in the past, I get unpredicatable results, and then when there is a problem, I can't nail down what it is because I have so much going on at once. I am currently using a Pflow system for this explosion, but I thought about adding 2-3 going in different directions, as well as off setting their ignitions a frame or so apart. Then another system for debris, shockwave, sparks, etc.

Massemannen
06-05-2012, 07:48 AM
Hi guys and gals!

I have falling objects that generates smoke as they fall. Problem is that the smoke is generated way after the objects and not on the objects itself. Can someone point me in the direction on where to fix this?
Thank you !
http://www.solidmind.se/Wood/CGI/FumeFX.png

AdrienSliver
06-05-2012, 08:03 AM
Can you show us your : Object source menu

Massemannen
06-05-2012, 09:20 AM
Sure thing!!
http://www.solidmind.se/Wood/CGI/FumeFX2.png

AdrienSliver
06-05-2012, 10:25 AM
Do you have try without your noise map inensity ?

Massemannen
06-05-2012, 10:33 AM
Aaaah that seems to work!!
Fantastic, thank you very much! :applause:

AdrienSliver
06-05-2012, 10:37 AM
Cool if it's works :)

Daniel-B
06-07-2012, 08:21 PM
Does anybody has any experience with FumeFX changing behavior drastically when simming very detailed grids, and what do you do to solve it?

I have this problem as well, it's so frustrating. I did the following sim at 400x400x400...

https://vimeo.com/43319446

Now, I was very happy with that sim, because I love how the fire looks. Then when I raised the grid res to even 450x450x450, my fire got all wispy/stringy and fake looking. It looked horrible, and I changed nothing but the grid res. Do other fluid simulators have this problem, or is it inherent with Fume?

I've been wanting to demo Phoenix, but it seems like almost no one uses it and there are very few resources on how to use it. I really like Fume alot, and would love to get predictable results out of grids over 400.

Raycat
06-07-2012, 09:12 PM
Daniel, that is a result of the fluids' behavior changing because of the higher detail.
In other words it just reacts differently.
I'm currently simming at 1800x630x1360 (I even did 4000x1400x3000) and I can tell you that from a certain scale everything changes. You simply have to rethink the sim.
One parameter which can help is the expansion (Fuel). Up it and the fluids will enlarge and will get back to the volume it was at lower res. Also upping the Temperature buoyancy can offer some help. Of course this al depends on the type of effect you're after in FFX.

The only way to get it back to your low res behavior is adjust parameters. And it'll take a lot of test and sim work (at least with me). From a certain scale the behavior is completely different (it varies per effect so you can not put a real border-scale value at it when it will change), although it may be physically correct off FFX(I can not really comment on that).

But on a side note 450x450x450 should be do-able and sim-times should be reasonable.

I can not comment on Phoenix, I only played a little with the demo.

Edit: when you work wit particle sources you may consider upping the radius (in FFX).

Daniel-B
06-07-2012, 09:46 PM
Perhaps one day in the near future, GPUs can accelerate fluid sims fast enough to get manageable sim times at 1000+ grid res. That would be nice to be able to do.

Raycat
06-07-2012, 10:13 PM
Yes I would like that to, and at a reasonable price (no Tesla-like prices)

JohnnyRandom
06-07-2012, 10:54 PM
I have this problem as well, it's so frustrating. I did the following sim at 400x400x400...

https://vimeo.com/43319446

Now, I was very happy with that sim, because I love how the fire looks. Then when I raised the grid res to even 450x450x450, my fire got all wispy/stringy and fake looking. It looked horrible, and I changed nothing but the grid res. Do other fluid simulators have this problem, or is it inherent with Fume?



Well firstly I assume you are using a spacing of 1.0 since you aren't saying. So based on that you do realize that you are simulating 64,000,000 voxels at 400 cubed and 91,125,000 at 450 cubed.

Dude that is not a moderate increase in voxels, you are adding almost 30 million more voxels to the grid! Sorry but any simulation is going to change drastically when you add that many more voxels to a size optimized grid. If your spacing is even lower then there are even more voxels!

So that is 30 million more voxels for the fluid to travel through and 30 million more calculations for advection, gravity, bouyancy, +100 other params. Just as a matter of understand the scope of what is really happening per step.

Daniel-B
06-07-2012, 10:58 PM
Well firstly I assume you are using a spacing of 1.0 since you aren't saying

The actual grid dimensions with a 1.0 spacing are 360x360x360.

JohnnyRandom
06-07-2012, 11:01 PM
Well where do the numbers you mention come from then? (400x400x400) I am confused.

Or are you saying you are dropping the spacing to 0.8 and lower respectively?

LOL not that it matters there are still a shit-ton more voxels in the grid. Even RF behaves differently when you increase the res.

Daniel-B
06-07-2012, 11:30 PM
Well where do the numbers you mention come from then? (400x400x400) I am confused.

Or are you saying you are dropping the spacing to 0.8 and lower respectively?

Yes, exactly. The actual size of the grid is 360 cubed. I lowered the spacing to .9 (400 cubed) and then 0.8 (450 cubed) and the sim changed for the worse.

JohnnyRandom
06-08-2012, 12:59 AM
The truly only way to preserve the motion you like and up-res is to wavelet. It has its limitations too of course. I do agree with you completely, it is next to impossible to know exactly what is going to happen when you change the density. Experiments and experience are the only way I know of (much like dealing with density in Krakatoa too).

So out of curiosity have you tried running a wavelet on that sim? I can say we beat the shit out of wavelet during spiderman and 85% of the time it held up amazingly well.

Oh and you can break up your initial blob with some simple geo that interferes with the path of the fluid. I like using a torus knot with fairly low steps and 3-6 sides. Of course having this deflector geo in the way will increase you sim times but should add nice variation. You can also use this as an object source and gradient map velocities to it as well ;)

bhavya2
06-10-2012, 03:03 PM
I am working on a project where i have to replicate the dust falling off the character; ground impact dust..and the smoke that emnates behind him....i have tried a couple of settings and techniques in fumefx but i am unable to get the desired motion of the smoke...any helpl would be appreciated
also i was not getting the soft an wispy dust look..(was using pf flow sourced fumefx)
shot-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVLPD30yF_4&feature=youtu.be

Raycat
06-11-2012, 11:32 AM
The truly only way to preserve the motion you like and up-res is to wavelet. It has its limitations too of course. I do agree with you completely, it is next to impossible to know exactly what is going to happen when you change the density. Experiments and experience are the only way I know of (much like dealing with density in Krakatoa too).

So out of curiosity have you tried running a wavelet on that sim? I can say we beat the shit out of wavelet during spiderman and 85% of the time it held up amazingly well.
...
John,
Just to be sure: Wavelet only adds more details "in" the effect, but doesn't really affect artifacts due to too low resolution (not enough voxels, too high scale), right?
The artifacts are mostly noticeable at the outer edges of fire (jagged edges). Just wondering, since I'm really pushing my hardware and FumeFX to get fine detail at the edges (and to a lesser degree also in the fire). The only way for me to do this, is to increase the amount of voxels.
Or are there any tricks with wavelet you can pull of to influence this? Any experience you have in this area I would love to hear about! Also what the 15% of cases are where Wavelet didn't help you ;-)

Best regards,
David

Daniel-B
06-11-2012, 02:52 PM
In my experience with wavelet, it tends to add too much turbulence. I usually dial back the strength to 1.0, and threshold to 0.5.

JohnnyRandom
06-11-2012, 03:24 PM
Yes it does get rid of voxel step artifacting. (EDIT: Let me be more correct, it doesn't get rid if it it just makes it smaller.) Most if not all of it, you are basically subdividing the saved voxel and running a wavelet algorithm on each of the subdivided data (not sure what the true programmatical terminology is for it).

Certainly depending on the look you want you will want to adjust the Strength/Threshold values. As a rule of thumb I like stronger effect for smaller scales and less effect for larger scales.

Just a quick visual example (download the original)

https://vimeo.com/43828606

Raycat
06-11-2012, 04:09 PM
Thanks for the quick replies, guys!
In the beginning i did some quick wavelet tests, and disregarded as a high res solution, because it didn't seem to solve the voxel artifacts. I was too quick in my judgement it seems.
I'm gonna test wt straight away. I am very curious to see the result on the fire projects.

Daniel-B
06-11-2012, 04:27 PM
I am very curious to see the result on the fire projects.

In my experience, wavelet turb adds very nicely to flames indeed. Here is one I did about a year ago, and I ran it at fairly low res around 120 voxels I believe, and added 2.0 wave turb...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssK9RiIkpM8&list=UUf2UVMAUbiUNTuRQo7Gl6RA&index=3&feature=plcp

Raycat
06-11-2012, 05:20 PM
In my experience, wavelet turb adds very nicely to flames indeed. Here is one I did about a year ago, and I ran it at fairly low res around 120 voxels I believe, and added 2.0 wave turb...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssK9RiIkpM8&list=UUf2UVMAUbiUNTuRQo7Gl6RA&index=3&feature=plcp

That is very nice fire!

JohnnyRandom
06-11-2012, 06:17 PM
That is very nice fire!

QFA :)

Where is that surface smoke coming from, or is it fuel set to renderable? It looks kinda cool

Daniel-B
06-11-2012, 07:16 PM
Well, that fire was made directly from a tutorial by Allan Mckay in his Fume FX Core Fundamentals DVD. It involved having particles shoot fuel inward toward the emitter center instead of outward. Those fluids colliding would then give you those flame like wisps.

However, I no longer do flames like that. The reason is the particles give away their ignition point. I now emit from a noise map on the surface of the object I want to burn. An emission noise in fuel and temperature, with the right sim settings, can give you very photoreal flames.

I have uploaded an example file if you guys want to see how I do my flames. Keep in mind this is set up with linear workflow. The lower the spacing, generally the better the flames will look. It sims pretty fast anyway. Here is the link to the file on Dropbox...

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/73226790/flame_line_02.max

JohnnyRandom
06-11-2012, 08:39 PM
Oddly enough, or not I guess, I too have never found it useful to use particles for anything but velocities and the occasional odd or end. I suppose when your source isn't visible it is a different story. I have always used mapped simple or object sources, I believe you have far greater control with mapped emission.

I think for the Particle Source to be truly useful it would have to take particle shapes into account, basically turning it into a group object source.

Daniel-B
06-11-2012, 09:11 PM
I think for the Particle Source to be truly useful it would have to take particle shapes into account, basically turning it into a group object source.

You could do that if you Mesher the particles. Not sure if their velocities would still be intact however...

JohnnyRandom
06-11-2012, 09:52 PM
Nah, I use XMesh ;)

Raycat
06-11-2012, 10:42 PM
A quick question regarding WT: do you apply the WT only to the fire or also to the fuel?
I'm currently testing the WT on a 1000x350x750 grid, with WT grid detail scale set to 3.0, resulting in a grid of 3000x1050x2250.
I've read in the manual that the Strength is based on the grid size so the larger the grid, the larger you should set the Strength. Can you give me a ballpark figure what strength-value should be set? I've tried values from 1 to 1000 but I seem to be running around in circles regarding the right Strength/Treshold and not getting decent results.
The only thing I want to do is eliminate the voxel artifacts. I even applied the WT with all channels unchecked which upsamples without applying WT, but no luck.
David

EDIT: I've added some screengrabs (partial grabs of the same part of the image, the full resolution of the images is 5500x4125) to illustrate the "problem". The first one is a render of the original 1000x350x750 grid (no WT), where you can see the voxel artifacts. The second one the settings which lead to the third image (rendering of the 3000x1050x2250 WT grid). You see that a lot of detail is lost when adding the WT. Due to me doing something wrong ;-)

JohnnyRandom
06-11-2012, 11:10 PM
Threshold is the important value, it determines in broad terms how many places the effect will be present. Strength is respectively how much will take place at each point.

Not really sure there is a ballpark figure although I would assume that the generic settings are based off of a default grid of 100x100x100 with a spacing of 1.0. So if a grid were 5 times larger I would expect the "base" setting to be 5 times higher strength. This is purely speculative as I have not tested it to see.

Raycat
06-12-2012, 06:39 AM
Yes, I'm playing with the strength and treshold.
The manual states that 2.0 is the default for a 100x grid and 20 for 1000x so I'm making some educated guesses based on that. But it still looks "ugly". The thing that boggles my mind is that most of the times the WT results in a change of look at the edges (the flames become more transparent at the edges).?Also see the screenshots in my previous post. I assume this is what the extra WT-detail is trying to do, but not the look I' m after. I'm playing with the treshold (raising it) so there is less detail.
Maybe it's because of the high resolution that the settings are a bit of world and rather hard to determine. But I keep searching...

3ak
06-12-2012, 10:58 AM
Hi.
I have one problem and can't find the right (production proven i mean) method.
99% explosions i see at vimeo, youtube is large scale with just big amount of expansion, fuel and temp. But i want to achieve something like that:
http://my.jetscreenshot.com/11355/m_20120612-wql7-53kb.jpg (http://my.jetscreenshot.com/11355/20120612-wql7-53kb)

Especially in the very beginnig. And then explosion begins at the impact point, expands and curls those streaks of smoke.
But i don't know how far should i go with particles to sculpt this? Only the tips with several trail particles and let fluids do the rest? Or use long trails?
I tried to sculpt "cones" with particles here - https://vimeo.com/42033844
but the problem is if i inherit particle velocity by fluid it starts to curl (i think as result of removing divergence from velocity field) and if i don't - smoke just don't grow in the right direction.
And second - smoke (without combustion, fuel) is strictly tied to particle. as soon as particle dies it stops to evolve.

Hope someone could point me to some info - methods, quantities (maybe i'm doing right things but with low particles number, low grids etc).

I thought to use krakatoa to render high quantities of points with greater mass to behave as sand, ground fracture and in addition emit some smoke from them. But i don't know how effectively comp these two later.

Thanks in advance. Any help is greatly appreciated.

Daniel-B
06-13-2012, 07:57 PM
So I've been playing around with this Wavelet Turbulence stuff, and for some reason, it seems to make the edges of my smoke look very "hard" instead of the nice soft falloff I had with the previous sim. Anyone know why this is?

amckay
06-13-2012, 08:17 PM
Try lowering the threshold of your fire and smoke, right now it looks for more the defined stuff to wavelet, so by lowering the thresh hold it will push more through the wavelet when it runs, rather than only the denser areas, that'll keep it more consistent.

Raycat
06-14-2012, 05:59 AM
Same here with the WT.
My orginal high res sim (1500x-2000x grid) is very smooth with nice gradients, but with some voxels artifacts (due to not enough voxels). When I apply the WT it becomes rather smeary and dirty a long with the hard edges. I tried a lot of WT-settings but not really satisfactory.
A few observations I would like to share:
-When you run the the WT without any checked channels, you get the most "smeary look" I assume this is because everything is subdivided (based on the WT scale) but no actual WT is applied to "clean up" the smeary voxels.
-I tried the most strange WT settings (even up to 1000 in WT strength) to get higher detail, but always I get a dirty look, it seems I can not get the WT to be "small" enough to be crisp at 6400x4800 renderings (this is a FFX grid (after WT) in the range of 3000x-4500x). I found this strange since the original sim (without WT applied) is already very smooth with only small voxel artifacts, applying WT which subdivides this high res grid by 2 or 3 results in much less smoothness but more artifacts, strange...
-With higher tresholds only the fast moving parts of the fluid (in my case fire) are affected by the WT. The other parts are only subdivided based on your WT scale (resulting in the smeary look). So I can not use this technique to preserve my soft edges while at the same time upping the res to remove the voxel artifacts of the original sim.
-The WT detail only looks good when zooming out my renders so at approx 3200x2400 it looks almost nice (you get very detailed flames, almost "noisy").

_my current conclusion is that I have to do it without WT and trying to up the scale to immense levels (3000x grids look nice up to 4000x3000 rendering resolutions, anything higher exposes the voxel artifacts too much) to resolve the voxel artifacts, but it seems that the 64GB in my machine even isn't enough to pull this off (I need renderings at 6400x4800)... I really don't know how to solve it honestly. I've been trying to solve this for 4-5 weeks now (even ordered a new 64Gb machine) but I think I'm pushing FFX too far. The only solution I see is more ram but that is not an option ...

JohnnyRandom
06-14-2012, 03:05 PM
Out of curiosity have you guys re-adjusted your render AFC's at all? You can pretty much eliminate ranges of the simulation with spikes in the curves. Just a thought, maybe it will help maybe it won't. I have noticed that after a wavelet my AFC's are not the same as the original.

Have you tried rotating the grid on any XYZ axis so it is not looking straight on to the camera?

Something that just came to mind, if you where to figure out what the size of your print pixel is and matched to your grid size at the camera distance, maybe your artifacts would be least noticeable?

EDIT: hmm didn't notice your posted pics until I visited the thread, I have been following this via email, now I see what you mean by smeary. Interesting indeed, are you using any substeps? How close to the grid is your camera? it almost looks like it is in it, which in all reality is bad. What I posted above still applies.

Daniel-B
06-14-2012, 03:17 PM
Although not a FumeFX sim (they used Flowline), MPC released a breakdown of a CG explosion used in Prometheus. It is probably the best looking CG explosion I've ever seen. If I could get mine looking that good, I'd be quite happy. Check out the breakdown here... (WARNING: SPOILERS)

http://www.cgsociety.org/index.php/CGSFeatures/CGSFeatureSpecial/prometheus

JohnnyRandom
06-14-2012, 03:27 PM
Argh, bummer, can't look at it until tomorrow, I still have to see the movie, no spoilers :)

Raycat
06-14-2012, 04:13 PM
Out of curiosity have you guys re-adjusted your render AFC's at all? You can pretty much eliminate ranges of the simulation with spikes in the curves. Just a thought, maybe it will help maybe it won't. I have noticed that after a wavelet my AFC's are not the same as the original.

Have you tried rotating the grid on any XYZ axis so it is not looking straight on to the camera?

Something that just came to mind, if you where to figure out what the size of your print pixel is and matched to your grid size at the camera distance, maybe your artifacts would be least noticeable?

EDIT: hmm didn't notice your posted pics until I visited the thread, I have been following this via email, now I see what you mean by smeary. Interesting indeed, are you using any substeps? How close to the grid is your camera? it almost looks like it is in it, which in all reality is bad. What I posted above still applies.

The left picture the original sim and the right one is with WT applied. I think that if there are any visible banding (due to not enough steps) this is emphasized with WT. The original sims took use of multiple steps (but enough, I was testing if WT could cover that up). I'm currently simming the grid at high res with high quality and enough steps.
Than I'm going to take into account your tip about the AFC-curves to try to solve the voxel artifacts with the AFC-curve & to try to rotate it a little bit. Thanks for those tips.
Adjusting the pixels to the print pixels is difficult since it the image will be used in multiple resolutions/media.
The cam is not in the fire. The pictures attached are just a cut out out of a 4000x3000 rendering ;-)

3ak
06-14-2012, 04:14 PM
Although not a FumeFX sim (they used Flowline), MPC released a breakdown of a CG explosion used in Prometheus. It is probably the best looking CG explosion I've ever seen. If I could get mine looking that good, I'd be quite happy. Check out the breakdown here... (WARNING: SPOILERS)

http://www.cgsociety.org/index.php/CGSFeatures/CGSFeatureSpecial/prometheus

Maybe i'm completely wrong, but i think ffx is too limited to produce something directable.
No access to fields (scripting is very slow), no volume math, no tweakable shaders (no BBR shader)). WT is just wavelet noise with only couple exposed params.
Effectors in 3.0 are more like 2.2 stuff. I think something like Magma mod for volumes is way more like 2012 year plugin.

Yes, i'm very disappointed, especially cause i can't find the way to "sculpt" good explosion (not big atomic-scale one)) and nobody can't help me and answer my questions couple of posts before=)

Daniel-B
06-14-2012, 04:53 PM
When I apply the WT it becomes rather smeary and dirty a long with the hard edges.

Yesterday I tried something that may help with the hard edges. I have not been able to run enough tests to be conclusive, but this is what I did. If my original sim has a smoke opacity of 1.0, and I wavelet turbulence it up to with a Grid Detail Scale of 2, then I change the opacity of my smoke to 0.5. If i did a Grid Detail Scale of 4, I would lower my smoke opacity to .25, and so on. This probably won't help in all situations, but I was making some clouds and it seemed to work nicely.

JohnnyRandom
06-14-2012, 04:57 PM
Maybe i'm completely wrong, but i think ffx is too limited to produce something directable.
No access to fields (scripting is very slow), no volume math, no tweakable shaders (no BBR shader)). WT is just wavelet noise with only couple exposed params.
Effectors in 3.0 are more like 2.2 stuff. I think something like Magma mod for volumes is way more like 2012 year plugin.
answer my questions couple of posts before=)

Your smart enough go use Houdini, it has all you are asking for ;) or use something else, it is as simple as that. As Kreso told me it is an artist tool, fair enough, I think exposure is decent for what it is, of course there could always be more. You get what you pay for, FumeFX or Phoenix for that matter are reasonably priced gaseous fluid simulators.

I haven't "sculpted" many explosions or else I would have answered you. If I had answers to your questions you would have them. Your intelligent and capable enough to figure this shit out just like the rest of us have or have tried to do. sorry :shrug:

3ak
06-14-2012, 05:23 PM
Your smart enough go use Houdini, it has all you are asking for ;) or use something else, it is as simple as that. As Kreso told me it is an artist tool, fair enough, I think exposure is decent for what it is, of course there could always be more. You get what you pay for, FumeFX or Phoenix for that matter are reasonably priced gaseous fluid simulators.

I haven't "sculpted" many explosions or else I would have answered you. If I had answers to your questions you would have them. Your intelligent and capable enough to figure this shit out just like the rest of us have or have tried to do. sorry :shrug:

You always help me with valuable info or joke. thanks=)
And yes. i'm trying Houdini right now)

I should add fumefx is do it well, i just need more control and some leaked pro setups))

Raycat
06-14-2012, 05:50 PM
Yesterday I tried something that may help with the hard edges. I have not been able to run enough tests to be conclusive, but this is what I did. If my original sim has a smoke opacity of 1.0, and I wavelet turbulence it up to with a Grid Detail Scale of 2, then I change the opacity of my smoke to 0.5. If i did a Grid Detail Scale of 4, I would lower my smoke opacity to .25, and so on. This probably won't help in all situations, but I was making some clouds and it seemed to work nicely.
Nice finding! I'll take that into account .
Thanks for sharing!

NahuelL
06-14-2012, 09:36 PM
You can also try lowering the Step Size % and increasing jittering in the rendering tab. Maybe that will get rid of of those artifacts.

fireknght2
06-14-2012, 09:52 PM
Try lowering the threshold of your fire and smoke, right now it looks for more the defined stuff to wavelet, so by lowering the thresh hold it will push more through the wavelet when it runs, rather than only the denser areas, that'll keep it more consistent.

Thanks Allan for stopping in and helping out, it's amazing what you can do!

Rich

Raycat
06-14-2012, 10:04 PM
You can also try lowering the Step Size % and increasing jittering in the rendering tab. Maybe that will get rid of of those artifacts.
Yes that is something I already do. But thank you for reminding me that this also can help a bit to resolve some issues.