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

Raycat
06-14-2012, 10:10 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.
Allan, thanks for stopping by! I bought your FumeFX-training right when I ordered FumeFX. Great tutorials, man!
Maybe it's time to do some lessons on real high resolution effects ;-)

PS I've seen your new reel, looks awesome, the only glitch was the horizontally squeezed footage of Blade. Maybe if you could set that to the original aspect ratio, that would make the reel even better. Especially because the reel opens with this footage.

Daniel-B
06-15-2012, 08:34 PM
So lately I've been thinking about making some Fume tutorials. Here is a test render of what I think will be my first tutorial...

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


However, I can't take all the credit, as most of it is inspired by Dan Chamberlin's post here...

http://forums.cgsociety.org/showpost.php?p=7238518&postcount=4736

Anyway, I will add a few techniques of my own in there too, and plan to do it very in depth.

Raycat
06-15-2012, 08:51 PM
that looks awesome!
I never thought of making that type of clouds with Fume.

Reminds me of the days when I was a betatester for Ultrashock (also for 3ds max), a volumetric plugin distributed by Digimation. Great for explosions and clouds.

Fume simply takes it to the next level. And judging by that image, it looks very promising....

JokerMartini
06-16-2012, 12:09 AM
That would be a great tutorial. One which I'd gladly pay for. When you hoping to have it made.

JohnnyRandom
06-16-2012, 12:15 AM
So lately I've been thinking about making some Fume tutorials. Here is a test render of what I think will be my first tutorial...

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


However, I can't take all the credit, as most of it is inspired by Dan Chamberlin's post here...

http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?p=7239380#post7239380

Anyway, I will add a few techniques of my own in there too, and plan to do it very in depth.

Nice job on the shader ;)

Daniel-B
06-16-2012, 10:49 AM
Explosion R&D V3. Still not perfect, but I'm working on getting there...

https://vimeo.com/44150355

Still Preview...

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

Raycat
06-16-2012, 11:21 AM
Guys, a quick update regarding solving voxel artifacting in high res sims:
It seems I may found a solution. After some serious testing I noticed that a lower step size% doesn't result in a better quality render (which I assumed was the case). Slightly higher step sizes result in way better quality.
The current workflow I'm testing is setting the Jittering % to 0 and finding a Step size% (currently 10-30-range) at which the voxel artifacts at the silhouette are gone. Then upping the Jittering% to "clean up" some banding inside the flames.
Basically you have to find the step size sweet spot instead of choosing the lowest. Maybe you guys already knew this, but for me it was a revelation ;-)

To be honest I'm very excited about this solution. And I wasn't expecting this. Does somebody know the reason why the lowest step size doesn result in the best quality?
fyi: I observed that when going to low (1-10 range) (step size%) you get a very pixelated outcome. Except when adding more jittering, which seems to benefit from a lower step size%.

rizviali110
06-20-2012, 05:20 AM
is there any one who got fumefx3 window crashed (low ram) on low spacing even when u have a large capacity of ram available .. it usually comes after I/O done according to Log file ?

Frame: 39
Vmax=9.457, dtReq=0.23, steps=1, CFL'=21.99
[larg fire area -src] Building voxels for front seat rock
[front seat rock] 4048 voxels, 0.1 Mb, 0.0s
[larg fire area -src] Building voxels for Sphere002
[Sphere002] 3762 voxels, 0.1 Mb, 0.0s
[larg fire area -src] Building voxels for Sphere006
[Sphere006] 4284 voxels, 0.1 Mb, 0.0s
[FFX Object Src001] Building voxels for Object003
[Object003] 36000 voxels, 0.2 Mb, 0.0s
[FFX Object Src001] Building voxels for Object
[Object] 11928 voxels, 0.1 Mb, 0.0s
[larg fire_back seat] Building voxels for Sphere003
[Sphere003] 1664 voxels, 0.0 Mb, 0.0s
[larg fire_back seat] Building voxels for Sphere004
[Sphere004] 1560 voxels, 0.0 Mb, 0.0s
[larg fire_back seat] Building voxels for Object003
[Object003] 36000 voxels, 0.2 Mb, 0.0s
Resizing: from (346,198,244) to (353,198,244)
Memory used: 748Mb
Resizing: from (353,198,244) to (348,198,244)
Memory used: 737Mb
ApplyForces done in 5.83 sec
Advect velocities done.
CG done in 31.35 sec with 200 iterations (104.698 MVOPS).
CG res e:-4.344 m:-4.344
Advect fields done.
I/O done in 1.67 sec
Saving fxd data FAILED (low RAM).
Frame time: 00:48.60
Simulation terminated.
Flushing larg fire area -src
Flushing FFX Object Src001
Flushing larg fire_back seat
Flushing bmw_main
Flushing Box002
Flushing Box001
Flushing RAM

Raycat
06-20-2012, 06:48 AM
No I haven't experienced that. What I did notice is that especially 3ds Max 2013 takes a long time after a render to give the control back to the UI.
And also if you have in FFX Preferences set that you want to be able to resume after nth frame, you can get very big .fxc-files (depends on your spacing and other settings of course) and these can take a long time to save to disk after the sim is done (a few minutes).
It's also strange you get this error, since when you have not enough RAM the system starts using the windows scratch disk.
Did you check that you have enough hard disk free to save the .fxd-file?
But the exact error you give here I have never received with FFX, sorry.

rizviali110
06-20-2012, 11:02 AM
yeah actually its strange for me too, i have around 8gb of ram from which +4 gb was unused during sim.. & as far as disk space is concern i have +50 gb of free space during sim.. only one solution seems working & that is by increasing spacing value i can sim few more frames before crash.. but obviously cant maintain quality.... is it 2013 issue? do i need to try the same file on 2012 or 2011? also i m thinking to go back in fumefx 2.1c with no effector :(

Raycat
06-20-2012, 01:16 PM
maybe a long shot, but are you running a 64-bit version of your OS (like WIndows 7 64-bit)?
If not (you're running a 32-bit OS), not all 8GB can be used, so it would seem to FFX you only have 4GB in your system. The reason it wouldn't occur in FFX2 may be that FFX 3 requires more memory due to more features or more channels you've selected.

But as I said this is a long shot since you really should have a 64-bit OS (and you probably have) to take full advantage of your RAM.

rizviali110
06-20-2012, 02:37 PM
i got win7 64 bit 8 gb ram 500 gb hdd xeon quadcore processor with 440gt nvidia gcard.... i dont knw if my pc specs doesnt support ffx3... however all of the other software are going fine even houdini & naiad which i am practicing these days..

Da_Ul
06-23-2012, 01:53 PM
A small private project,
inspired by this picture: thisiscolossal.com/2012/06/up-in-smoke/ (http://www.thisiscolossal.com/2012/06/up-in-smoke/)

https://vimeo.com/44549271

Uli

fireknght2
06-23-2012, 07:47 PM
A small private project,
inspired by this picture: thisiscolossal.com/2012/06/up-in-smoke/ (http://www.thisiscolossal.com/2012/06/up-in-smoke/)

https://vimeo.com/44549271

Uli

I like it very good effect.

Rich

AdrienSliver
06-25-2012, 06:32 PM
Nice sim/render Uli !

I'm working too on a personal project and I wanted to know if is it possible with FFX to create a candle smoke simulation like this :

http://uppix.3dvf.com/images/8Z0av.jpg

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

I'm trying since few days, with lower advection, Advection Fields, Turbulences, Buoyancy, systemscale 2, etc but I don't find the best way, do you have an idea ?

Thank you in advance for your help

Daniel-B
06-25-2012, 06:59 PM
I'm trying since few days, with lower advection, Advection Fields, Turbulences, Buoyancy, systemscale 2, etc but I don't find the best way, do you have an idea ?

I would start by lowering vorticity first, and then tweaking from there. Say around 0.1 - 0.2.

AdrienSliver
06-25-2012, 07:22 PM
My vorticity is set to : 0.
I think it's hard with ffx to achieve this type of result, I'm lost :bowdown:

Raycat
06-26-2012, 09:54 AM
My vorticity is set to : 0.
I think it's hard with ffx to achieve this type of result, I'm lost :bowdown:
first create the effect without turbulence. So you'll probably get a "straight plume of smoke". Only add the turbulence as the last step. So you can concentrate on the turbulence setting to achieve the smoke movement.

Maybe you could post a screen of how your effect looks at the moment? So we can compare it to the screens you posted already.

AdrienSliver
06-26-2012, 02:11 PM
Thank you, that's what i'm doing, it's hard to have nice curves. Do you have test it ?
I keep it up, let me know if someone have usefull tips :lightbulb

coldside-digital
06-26-2012, 02:52 PM
So lately I've been thinking about making some Fume tutorials. Here is a test render of what I think will be my first tutorial...

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


However, I can't take all the credit, as most of it is inspired by Dan Chamberlin's post here...

http://forums.cgsociety.org/showpost.php?p=7238518&postcount=4736

Anyway, I will add a few techniques of my own in there too, and plan to do it very in depth.

Extremely interested in this one! Been doing some cloud RnD lately with Pyrocluster, Krakatoa volume rendering and Vray volume fog, but haven't really come up with anything I'm too happy with for large scale.

Raycat
06-26-2012, 09:12 PM
Thank you, that's what i'm doing, it's hard to have nice curves. Do you have test it ?
I keep it up, let me know if someone have usefull tips :lightbulb
No, I didn't do such an effect. It's just my general way of working with ffx.

AdrienSliver
06-27-2012, 06:24 AM
Thanks :) I will post my result

Raycat
06-27-2012, 06:48 AM
Looking forward to it!

DanFX
06-27-2012, 10:12 AM
So lately I've been thinking about making some Fume tutorials. Here is a test render of what I think will be my first tutorial...

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


However, I can't take all the credit, as most of it is inspired by Dan Chamberlin's post here...

http://forums.cgsociety.org/showpost.php?p=7238518&postcount=4736

Anyway, I will add a few techniques of my own in there too, and plan to do it very in depth.

Glad I could help. I'm looking forward to your tutorial. :)

I've actually been playing around with that cloud setup for the past week or so, prepping it for another show that needs them, and I've made a few tweaks here and there, mostly lighting and turbulence. I'll see if I can post some images when the project is finished.

-Dan

d4rk3lf
06-28-2012, 12:11 AM
I'm trying since few days, with lower advection, Advection Fields, Turbulences, Buoyancy, systemscale 2, etc but I don't find the best way, do you have an idea ?

Thank you in advance for your help

Have you tried to make particles to behave swirly like look, and then to use Fume Particle source?
I've tried that now, and here's what I get (left is just straight particles, right is Fume):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gy7fBsGuSow&feature=youtu.be

If you want to take a look at the max (2010) file, I am attaching it.
------------------

However, some questions came to me while I was doing this test, so I gotta ask here.

Can I somehow set-up FumeFX (density, or smoke amount (with AFC curve)), to behave on each separate particle, not on whole particle flow?

My english is very bad, so I'll try to explain once more:
I want to be able to control that each of my particle (for example, smoke I did) have same volume and density over whole life, but the tiny smoke every particle creates goes linearly to fade out. So... to have.. 2 like controls.
When I try to use AFC curve, it affects whole particle system at once, so I can fade just the beginning or the end of the whole smoke, not for the each particle separately.
If I get this, then I think I can create much closer smoke to candles examples on this page.

Any tip? Advise?

Daniel-B
06-28-2012, 05:35 PM
Just another boom test in my never ending obsession with the perfect fireball...

https://vimeo.com/44880772

Still preview...

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

Junaidishtar
06-28-2012, 06:01 PM
Hi everyone,

I have a fumefx cloud and I want to push/rip a certain portion of it by passing through a jet aircraft.
I have tried through using the jet as an collision object but at the impact it just creates a spherical circular shape of the cloud instead of ripping it and giving it dispersion/turbulence in all dimension while it leaves that spot.
any thoughts?
thanks

Daniel-B
06-28-2012, 06:12 PM
Hi everyone,

I have a fumefx cloud and I want to push/rip a certain portion of it by passing through a jet aircraft.
I have tried through using the jet as an collision object but at the impact it just creates a spherical circular shape of the cloud instead of ripping it and giving it turbulence in all dimension while it leaves that spot.
any thoughts?
thanks

You could attach a particle system to the wing and emit velocities to break it up. Or a simple source.

Junaidishtar
06-28-2012, 06:22 PM
Hey Daniel,

This is what I am doing right now. by emitting particles from the mesh and using temp and velocities but that scatters the smoke in a weird or a flower shape. thanks

Daniel-B
06-28-2012, 06:39 PM
Can you post a screen grab or video of what your fluid looks like? Have you tried increasing time scale?

Junaidishtar
06-28-2012, 07:22 PM
after increasing time scale the impact gets more bigger though.

Daniel-B
06-28-2012, 08:14 PM
If you increase the time scale, you'll have to cut the velocities in half to compensate for the extra push the fluids will get.

Junaidishtar
06-28-2012, 08:21 PM
neat. let me give it a shot.

thanks

deathstone
07-03-2012, 08:21 AM
here is my FX film showreel with a lot of Fume, TP and Krakatoa stuff
https://vimeo.com/43382189

Daniel-B
07-06-2012, 07:25 AM
Continuing my explosion R&D.

https://vimeo.com/45296021

Still Preview...

http://i.imgur.com/W9WBC.jpg

iceman32
07-08-2012, 10:49 PM
Anyone here using FumeFX 3.0.2 (latest version) along with cebas thinking particles 5.0?
I am getting an error: fumefx_tp.dlo failed to initialize when I start max 2012 x64.
fumefx_tp.dlo is loaded after the cebas plugins is loaded in the plugin.ini file.
Is it Afterworks who screwed up the plugin?

JohnnyRandom
07-08-2012, 11:23 PM
Hmm, not sure, I don't use 2012 and my TP5.0 beta license has expired I couldn't tell you if I wanted too. I do recall there were some issues with TP/Fume during beta, not sure if they are fixed and no one really knew much of why except for the fact that is wasn't fully working.

My best guess is they are working on it.:shrug:

Raycat
07-09-2012, 08:36 AM
I didn't know FFX 3.0.2 was out, the latest one I have is the 3.0.1.

iceman32
07-09-2012, 12:26 PM
I didn't know FFX 3.0.2 was out, the latest one I have is the 3.0.1.

Yes, 3.0.2 is out.
Do you use tp and fume?

Raycat
07-09-2012, 12:51 PM
No sorry, only Fume, not TP.
Strange that they don't send mails to their customers when updates are available.
No mention of the 3.0.2-update on the Afterworks-site. I guess I have to login to the support-section to see if it is available...(will have to wait until I'm at my office).


EDIT:
Yes 3.0.2 is available (couldn't wait until I was in my office ;-) ):
What's new in FumeFX 3.0.2
========================
+ Fixed few MXS parameters name.
+ Installer writing to correct Plugin.ini when language is other than English. Also icons folder location is fixed.
+ Default output path can sometimes miss _ number separator.
+ Added new type of gravity - Point gravity
+ Fixed mental ray crash
+ GPU Preview window will now display object source geometry and particle source geometry.
+ Multiview will display objects from other grids as well.

Nice to see Sitni Sati provides us with regular updates! Keep up the good work, guys!

PsychoSilence
07-09-2012, 06:15 PM
Thanks for the news! That update totally flew under my radar! Does the twittersphere know yet?

Anselm

Raycat
07-09-2012, 07:10 PM
I only just noted it also. Triggered by the post of Iceman.

BTW Good reel!, Nice breakdowns!

JohnnyRandom
07-09-2012, 08:54 PM
Thanks for the news! That update totally flew under my radar! Does the twittersphere know yet?

Anselm

I only read them I don't write them, so nothing there from me.

tanmoycgartist
07-11-2012, 01:58 PM
I don't know whether it is the right thread to post this or not though!

Actually I'm having a problem regarding the wavelet simulation.Last week i simed a simulation with wavelet option checked on and after the initial simulation i also did the wavelet simulation for few 30 frames.Then for some reason i stopped the wavelet calculation.But now after a few days when I'm continuing the wavelet simulation it's giving the error that "the grid does not match with the file"('Match grid in file' option isn't helping ether) and when I'm re simulating the wavelet simulation I'm getting a error saying that "the default simulation was simulated with Extra Detail set to Fluid Maping instead of Wavelet Turbulence"

I was working on FumeFX 2 when i simmed the file last time but now I'm working on FumeFX 3. Is that a reason behind this problem!?

Thanks!!!(and sorry for my poor English :( :P )

JohnnyRandom
07-11-2012, 03:55 PM
But now after a few days when I'm continuing the wavelet simulation it's giving the error that "the grid does not match with the file"('Match grid in file' option isn't helping ether) and when I'm re simulating the wavelet simulation I'm getting a error saying that "the default simulation was simulated with Extra Detail set to Fluid Maping instead of Wavelet Turbulence"


Hmmm, I haven't seen that since 2.1

Some things you can look for/try:

You need to make sure that when you are ready to run your wavelet sim that your grid settings match the original grid. Sometimes these settings do not return when you swap caches back and forth.

The second thing you need to check is that your cache is set to default and not set to wavelet. As depending on how the simulation was stopped, IE it finished the cache will automatically switch to wavelet. You can't wavelet a wavelet.

If those don't solve it, check the preferences, and turn off Auto Sync Paths, go to the general tab and create a new wavelet folder location, then try to sim again.

tanmoycgartist
07-11-2012, 06:45 PM
Thanks for the reply JohnnyRandom

yep i checked the grid size and the cache was also set to default. i didn't face this mismatch problem of grid in V2.1 but in V3 i'v faced this before also.

But anyway! this was a problem of FumeFx version .I used the old default cache to simulate the Wavelet again but this time in FumeFX 2.1 and it works.

So you can't simulate Wavelet out of the default simulation cache which was simulated with a earlier version of FumeFx!

JohnnyRandom
07-11-2012, 08:04 PM
So you can't simulate Wavelet out of the default simulation cache which was simulated with a earlier version of FumeFx!

AFAIK you would only be able to read a default or a wavelet simmed in an earlier version. Not sure as I haven't tested it but be able to post process it either.

Just a guess but I would not think that you would be able to wavelet a 2.1 or earlier sim in version 3.0. Or even 1.0 to 2.1.

karanjaura
07-12-2012, 07:33 AM
Hi Guys,
I'm just wondering if any of you have used the velocity pass of Fume FX in Nuke for motion blur ?

I am outputting exr from 3dsmax with the velocity pass embedded in it and giving vector blur in nuke by loading the velocity info in UV channels,but some how the motion blur which I'm getting is not correct.Does any one has a solution for this ?

Waiting for your replies.

Best
Karan

raymarcher
07-15-2012, 03:53 PM
Are there people using Phoenix? It seems that not many are using it or am I wrong. I am looking for a simple solver for smoke and liquids so Phoenix comes first into mind but it seems no one is using it. Anyone can elaborate?

AdrienSliver
07-15-2012, 04:51 PM
I'm starting to learn phoenix for liquid and foam but not for fire sorry. You're right they are not a lot of people who are using this plug in

JohnnyRandom
07-17-2012, 09:30 PM
Something wicked this way comes: :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjW1Y1CD-kM

3ak
07-17-2012, 11:32 PM
Something wicked this way comes: :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjW1Y1CD-kM

Nice tool! Do you know something about workflow? Sim Ember object to create various field (pure math or + various sampling techniques) and prt Ember object to create/visualize particles?

JohnnyRandom
07-18-2012, 02:06 AM
I only know what I have been told so far, which isn't too much.

I do know that you can create fields as you mentioned but with the PRT Ember and then sim them with SIM Ember.

Here is a bit more info:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58_bsedTCYE&feature=player_detailpage

Glacierise
07-18-2012, 02:15 AM
The videos are wicked cool! Way deep in the avantgarde, that Ember is :)

rajted
07-18-2012, 09:56 PM
Something wicked this way comes: :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjW1Y1CD-kM
Great stuff! Thanks :)

3ak
07-18-2012, 11:36 PM
I only know what I have been told so far, which isn't too much.

I do know that you can create fields as you mentioned but with the PRT Ember and then sim them with SIM Ember.

Here is a bit more info:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58_bsedTCYE&feature=player_detailpage

Thanks. Will wait for demo to try)

Rareden
07-21-2012, 05:40 AM
does fume calculate air currents/turbulence, like when an object moves through the grid it creates a depression behind it which sucks smoke and fire in for a sec

ThallDesign
07-21-2012, 06:58 PM
Yes you can connect geometry to fume and then have fume interact with it, flames licking up the side of a car model, or a jet pushing through a smoke cloud for example. Even complex geometry is no problem.

If you want a "sucking" motion you may want to try a space warp like Vortex or Wind set to a negative value. Space warps need to be ramped up quite a bit in the settings so they influence fume.

I hope this answers your question, but I may have misunderstood what you're after.

DeKo-LT
07-21-2012, 10:02 PM
A little offtopic,
guys, anyone can explain what is this and WHY?
http://deko.lt/tmp/Forums/nuke_sliced.jpg
https://vimeo.com/26473768
https://vimeo.com/31016607

Is there any advantages to have sliced fluids in fumefx?

Rareden
07-21-2012, 10:36 PM
that can be used as a volumetric effect for game engines and such

and yes that was what i was asking, but how would you go about having a plane fly through a column of smoke and get that swirl effect from the rotors as it goes through

JohnnyRandom
07-22-2012, 04:29 PM
Hmm no idea, he disabled comments too, so you can't ask. bummer.

Cheaper to render? better internal lighting? I would be interested to know too. I could see you could do some interesting effects with portions of the slices.

It appeared to have really nice depth when the camera was offsetting its original location.

ThallDesign
07-22-2012, 06:01 PM
that can be used as a volumetric effect for game engines and such

and yes that was what i was asking, but how would you go about having a plane fly through a column of smoke and get that swirl effect from the rotors as it goes through

Animate the propeller spinning around and fume will take care of the rest!

raymarcher
07-22-2012, 08:17 PM
I guess it can be used as a fast cheat in a scene with limited paralax, it renders faster then rendering full volumetrics.

Rareden
07-22-2012, 10:28 PM
true it would render faster but if you make each slice into its own individual texture and use every nth frame from the animation you can create a sprite, and do that for all of the slices and youve got yourself a really good looking explosion for a game

3ak
07-22-2012, 10:30 PM
I guess it can be used as a fast cheat in a scene with limited paralax, it renders faster then rendering full volumetrics.

I think it's for exhibitions. Print it on acrylic film (10-20 layers), hang them one behind other and you have 3d-looking explosion =) (with a bit limited parallax as you said)

Rareden
07-30-2012, 03:06 AM
anyone know how to achieve a space explosion, im guessing no gravity or buoyancy (obviously)
and high smoke dispersion with some sort of noise map as the spawn

Daniel-B
07-30-2012, 03:17 AM
anyone know how to achieve a space explosion, im guessing no gravity or buoyancy (obviously)
and high smoke dispersion with some sort of noise map as the spawn

An actual explosion in space would look bizarre, and not like you're used to seeing in movies. I wouldn't worry too much about physical accuracy, and just go for something that looks cool. You could do a fast burn rate, because an exposed fire in space would extinguish very quickly due to lack of oxygen. Look at Star Trek 2009, the beginning 10 minutes for some cool space explosions.

Rareden
07-30-2012, 03:25 AM
yea i saw a really awesome one on stargate universe one of the final episodes

Cryptite
07-30-2012, 02:22 PM
Show us what you come up with though! Space explosions are always fun to look at since they're so different.

Rareden
07-30-2012, 10:35 PM
indeed they are

Rareden
07-31-2012, 04:42 AM
1st test, lowish spacing all spawned with particles

http://s1141.photobucket.com/albums/n600/Rareden/?action=view&current=boom.mp4

JoeBananas
07-31-2012, 08:21 AM
thought everyone might find this interesting..

fire breathers filmed at 2000 fps

https://vimeo.com/11393034#

Daniel-B
07-31-2012, 02:48 PM
1st test, lowish spacing all spawned with particles

http://s1141.photobucket.com/albums/n600/Rareden/?action=view&current=boom.mp4


That looks great. Just looks a little chewy on the smoke. Try to fade the smoke out softer, and I think you'll have something nice.

Cryptite
07-31-2012, 02:56 PM
1st test, lowish spacing all spawned with particles

http://s1141.photobucket.com/albums/n600/Rareden/?action=view&current=boom.mp4

Sweet! I'd also see about making it a little less symmetrical; try to randomize the direction they emit from so you don't get the "box explosion" we all make when we start our fume tests.

Rareden
07-31-2012, 11:04 PM
had the radius of the particles to big so it looks a bit bloby

Rareden
08-01-2012, 03:12 AM
better worse?
http://s1141.photobucket.com/albums/n600/Rareden/?action=view&current=boom_FumeFXFire.mp4

Daniel-B
08-01-2012, 09:56 PM
better worse?
http://s1141.photobucket.com/albums/n600/Rareden/?action=view&current=boom_FumeFXFire.mp4


Better, but the beginning looks a bit whispy. Try upping the expansion for the first few frames and then dropping it down.

JohnnyRandom
08-01-2012, 10:40 PM
Nothing to do with your sim but with the lighting, if you are going to add a background plate work your lighting a little bit more :)

Rareden
08-01-2012, 10:56 PM
yeh thats the background thats going to be used in the final scene, vray dome light dosent seem to be compatible with fume which i was using an hdri map with for the scene lighting but i guess ill just have to put loads of direct lights in to mimic the hdri lighting

Rareden
08-01-2012, 11:21 PM
getting an odd issue with multiple direct lights, i have 3 lights each a different color thats coming from the nebula in curtain directions but it seems that if one light is at a multiplier of 1 all the other lights below 1 are ignored, whats with this?

bkravi
08-02-2012, 03:28 AM
How can I get the object to cast shadows on fumefx? is that possible.
please help.

Rareden
08-02-2012, 03:36 AM
How can I get the object to cast shadows on fumefx? is that possible.
please help.

do you have cast and receive shadows enabled under smoke rendering tab, and atmospheric shadows enabled on the light

bkravi
08-02-2012, 03:45 AM
do you have cast and receive shadows enabled under smoke rendering tab, and atmospheric shadows enabled on the light

Yes, I do have all the options ON but, it behaves very wierd in a scene where my setup is i cant get objects to cast shadows on fume but if I make seperate scene it does cast shadows, i have checked and using same settings.

Cryptite
08-02-2012, 02:33 PM
What kind of lights are you using to cast the shadows with and what kind of shadows are they set to? Traditionally only Shadow Map and Ray Traced Shadows have a tendency to work reliably. Also don't forget to check Atmospheric Shadows on under the Shadow Parameters.

Rareden
08-02-2012, 10:28 PM
any one got an idea of whats going on with my lighting issue, or dose fume no like multiple lights

JohnnyRandom
08-02-2012, 11:09 PM
any one got an idea of whats going on with my lighting issue, or dose fume no like multiple lights

Here is the basic troubleshoot:
1. Have you added the lights to Fume?
2. Are you using supported lights?
3. Are you using supported shadow types?
4. Are Atmospheric Shadows enabled?

If Yes to all of those you have a bigger problem.

Rareden
08-03-2012, 12:14 AM
Here is the basic troubleshoot:
1. Have you added the lights to Fume?
2. Are you using supported lights?
3. Are you using supported shadow types?
4. Are Atmospheric Shadows enabled?

If Yes to all of those you have a bigger problem.

yes using normal direct lights with raytraced shadows and atmospheric shadows enabled, the shadows and lighting work its that they only work for one light, because im trying to mimic the HDRI map with multiple lights of different colors and things but if one light is at a multiplier of 1 then all other lights below 1 are ignored from the lighting for some reason

JohnnyRandom
08-03-2012, 01:08 AM
I would like to say "That's preposterous" :)

Example:

EDIT: sorry my bad I built it in 2013 and neglected to saveBack as 2011. This one is correct.

Rareden
08-03-2012, 01:46 AM
i know, but for some reason fume is having a fit with 3 lights it only likes one
oh and max gives me an error when i try to open that scene just says failed to open............very helpful max

JohnnyRandom
08-03-2012, 02:20 AM
I failed to save back as 2011, there is a correct version there now.

Daniel-B
08-03-2012, 04:30 PM
I know this is a Fume thread, but are there any resources out there for Phoenix that you guys know about? It seems there is almost no user base for that plugin, but I wanted to try the demo. It's more physically based, and I wondered how it would compare to Fume.

JohnnyRandom
08-03-2012, 05:51 PM
Ya know I bought it way back when they had a super sweet deal on it, I have dabbled with it a bit, it is very capable but there just doesn't seem to be anyone really hammering it, if they are, they sure are keeping it under tabs :shrug:

Daniel-B
08-03-2012, 06:29 PM
Ya know I bought it way back when they had a super sweet deal on it, I have dabbled with it a bit, it is very capable but there just doesn't seem to be anyone really hammering it, if they are, they sure are keeping it under tabs :shrug:

Well, I won't say I've learned everything about Fume, but I feel like I have a very good grasp on it now. I'd like to play with Phoenix and see how it compares. But like you said, there are almost no tutorials or resources on it. There is the user manual, which is very through. Maybe I'll just start with that and play around.

DanFX
08-04-2012, 01:11 AM
A nifty tip I thought I'd share: I was on a quest some months back to find a way to lower render times on a really high res sim that had about 12 lights all casting shadows in an attempt to fake GI and was taking 40 minutes/frame just to render a test.

I found that if you change the Undersample / Threshold value on the Illumination map from the default 0.05 to 2.0, it'll look exactly the same (at least every sim I've rendered in the last 5-6 months has looked the same either way), and it'll cut the illumination map calculation time by about 1/3rd.

It's been quite a handy trick. Figured it may help someone.

-Dan

Raycat
08-06-2012, 06:14 AM
Thanks for the Tip Dan!
Lower render times are always appreciated ;-)

Raycat
08-06-2012, 10:00 AM
Well, I won't say I've learned everything about Fume, but I feel like I have a very good grasp on it now. I'd like to play with Phoenix and see how it compares. But like you said, there are almost no tutorials or resources on it. There is the user manual, which is very through. Maybe I'll just start with that and play around.
You've probably already seen this link, but just to be sure here it is:
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9FF6FAF134201935&feature=plcp

Those are all clips from Chaos themselves. I've ony played briefly with the demo of Phoenix FD, so not much help I'm afraid..

And also a lengthy video for Phoenix 4 Maya, but the Phoenix-principles remain:
http://www.wtv3d.org/t13085-maya-tutorial-phoenix-fd-for-maya-1054verview-by-chaos-group-tv

Daniel-B
08-06-2012, 06:35 PM
You've probably already seen this link, but just to be sure here it is...

Indeed I have seen them. One glaring problem I've had with Phoenix, and I'm sure it's due to my own ignorance, is I can't even figure out how to dissipate smoke. Unless I'm overlooking it, I can't find an option for "Dissipation" anywhere. Anyway, when I get some free time I'll play around with the demo.

Raycat
08-07-2012, 07:18 AM
Indeed I have seen them. One glaring problem I've had with Phoenix, and I'm sure it's due to my own ignorance, is I can't even figure out how to dissipate smoke. Unless I'm overlooking it, I can't find an option for "Dissipation" anywhere. Anyway, when I get some free time I'll play around with the demo.

Isn't the dissipation related to this setting?: Under General "Pressure decay (MXS: pressdec)"

Also visit
http://www.spot3d.com/phoenix20
Especially the tips & tricks at the bottom.

Daniel-B
08-07-2012, 03:01 PM
Isn't the dissipation related to this setting?: Under General "Pressure decay (MXS: pressdec)"

I think that has more to do with decreasing pressure as you get higher up in the atmosphere. For instance, on a very large smoke simulation, like a volcanic eruption, these is a noticeable drop in atmospheric pressure from the bottom of the smoke to the top.

Raycat
08-08-2012, 11:13 AM
I think that has more to do with decreasing pressure as you get higher up in the atmosphere. For instance, on a very large smoke simulation, like a volcanic eruption, these is a noticeable drop in atmospheric pressure from the bottom of the smoke to the top.
I agree, it was a bit late.

JokerMartini
08-09-2012, 01:53 AM
I've got an object with a gradient map on it and the map animates to create a wipe effect across the model. I use this map to generate the fume. My problem is that after the sim is done and I preview it, it is super jumpy/jittery. Why is that? Is there something I'm doing that would cause this smoke to bounce around as a whole, and not act fluid like?

Daniel-B
08-09-2012, 04:01 AM
I've got an object with a gradient map on it and the map animates to create a wipe effect across the model. I use this map to generate the fume. My problem is that after the sim is done and I preview it, it is super jumpy/jittery. Why is that? Is there something I'm doing that would cause this smoke to bounce around as a whole, and not act fluid like?


Is it a codec you are using to preview it? Can you show us what you mean?

bighobbit
08-09-2012, 11:41 PM
first of all you have to excuse me for my english and for my confusing text :surprised
but, is there any way to get data from thinking particle and feed it to fumefxs, effector, so we can control all those new boxes, wich could be connected only to effector helper by the help of thinking particles?

3ak
08-13-2012, 08:15 AM
Hi.
Does anybody know how to scale down certain fields in ffx sim?
I have main sim and want to use some field for futher calculations. But i don't need it in such detail. I'm trying to get it to second, less dense grid via fumefx source (to match to this grid and rescale field this way) but it seems to be very slow.

Is there any other way?

thanks.

JokerMartini
08-13-2012, 01:40 PM
Hey guys, Sorry for the slow response. I was out for the weekend.
In the provided link is the fume render along with a jepg showing my settings.

http://jokermartini.com/myStuff/smokeTest.zip

Glacierise
08-13-2012, 03:41 PM
Hi.
Does anybody know how to scale down certain fields in ffx sim?
I have main sim and want to use some field for futher calculations. But i don't need it in such detail. I'm trying to get it to second, less dense grid via fumefx source (to match to this grid and rescale field this way) but it seems to be very slow.

Is there any other way?

thanks.

Krakatoa is the way :)

Raycat
08-14-2012, 10:06 AM
Since we'e here amongst particles/fire/smoke-enthusiasts I would like to share the Houdini PyroFX 2-link, which you all probably know well. But it still amazes me that they can build a software-package which includes so many features (PyroFX being one of them). It seems there is no need for plugins for Houdini.
If I would be starting today, I would seriously consider Houdini and not 3ds Max. It seems more technical but it's flexibility seems enormous (perhaps also being its weakest point-too complicated); Nevertheless I'll stop talking about it, just wanted to share my thoughts (and enthusiasm)... hope you don't mind ;-)

http://www.sidefx.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2123&Itemid=360

JohnnyRandom
08-14-2012, 09:25 PM
Not to mention that SideFX cut the price nearly in half too ;) Of course for $2500 a year AUP they should just give it to you :D

Daniel-B
08-15-2012, 03:21 AM
My latest explosion sim.

https://vimeo.com/47565519

Still Preview...

http://i.imgur.com/5QfFj.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/5QfFj.jpg)

Raycat
08-16-2012, 05:51 AM
My latest explosion sim.

https://vimeo.com/47565519

Still Preview...

I really like it! Especially the beginning which is really "organic" (with the burst of flames on the left side).
Nice job!

Raycat
08-16-2012, 12:05 PM
Not to mention that SideFX cut the price nearly in half too ;) Of course for $2500 a year AUP they should just give it to you :D
Indeed slashing the price with 50% and keeping the AUP (for Houdini FX) at 2495 still makes it rather expensive. Although I hear a lot of good things about their support, and they release dot and full releases every year. Also the first year AUP is free (included in the purchase).
Maybe (probably) the 2495 is worth its money more than my current 3ds max subscription ...

Daniel-B
08-16-2012, 03:07 PM
I really like it! Especially the beginning which is really "organic" (with the burst of flames on the left side).
Nice job!

Thank you. The only problem I have is that I need my smoke nice and thick to get that explosion look I'm after. I have fire emit an amount of 25 smoke. However, once the fire dies, the smoke is still far too thick, like a volcano.

If you watch explosions in movies (I'm modeling mine after The Avengers) you will notice that the smoke is really thick at first, and VERY quickly dissipates and gets soft after the fire dies out, but I haven't found settings that will allow me to do that. I may end up having to keyframe the opacity of the smoke to get what I'm after.

JohnnyRandom
08-16-2012, 03:36 PM
Indeed slashing the price with 50% and keeping the AUP (for Houdini FX) at 2495 still makes it rather expensive. Although I hear a lot of good things about their support, and they release dot and full releases every year. Also the first year AUP is free (included in the purchase).
Maybe (probably) the 2495 is worth its money more than my current 3ds max subscription ...

In all honesty the amount I pay for subscriptions, those being; Max, Thinkbox tools, Realflow, plus some various upgrades. It is nearly a wash for me. Then again I would have to build my particular pipeline all over again. If I got better deals for all the software I beta for it would make a difference (some upgrades I get for free). Although, if certain things don't change with the way AD is currently headed it won't matter, Houdini may have another bird under their wing.


EDIT: BTW that is a very nice explosion you have there. You could try some stuff like manually over-driving the Vorticity to greater than 1.0 in the trackview or via script that will break up your smoke faster, you can also use the diffuser in the smoke settings, I wouldn't get to jiggy with that though too great a value and it can look funky.

EDIT: EDIT: You could create an effector+free to effect the whole grid and (if you want) test where there is smoke or a particular temperature or fire or whatever then replace or add vorticity with x value.

Daniel-B
08-16-2012, 07:40 PM
you can also use the diffuser in the smoke settings, I wouldn't get to jiggy with that though too great a value and it can look funky.

I think you may be onto something there. I'll try it when I get home. If I can key frame the diffusion to ramp up right as the fire dies out, it could look pretty good. This is really my last hurdle before I'm happy with my fume explosions.

alexhalstead
08-17-2012, 04:07 AM
Thank you. The only problem I have is that I need my smoke nice and thick to get that explosion look I'm after. I have fire emit an amount of 25 smoke. However, once the fire dies, the smoke is still far too thick, like a volcano.

If you watch explosions in movies (I'm modeling mine after The Avengers) you will notice that the smoke is really thick at first, and VERY quickly dissipates and gets soft after the fire dies out, but I haven't found settings that will allow me to do that. I may end up having to keyframe the opacity of the smoke to get what I'm after.

If dissipation and diffusion doesn't work for you, I've found that rendering 2 separate passes of your smoke at different densities and mixing/swapping between both in comp works pretty well. It can take a bit of work to merge them convincingly but the extra control in comp is much more beneficial in my opinion.

3ak
08-17-2012, 01:08 PM
Here is my little test (video strobs sometimes in firefox, don't know why. chrome is ok):
http://vimeo.com/47717040

http://my.jetscreenshot.com/11355/m_20120817-04mt-41kb.jpg (http://my.jetscreenshot.com/11355/20120817-04mt-41kb)

Daniel-B
08-17-2012, 05:13 PM
Very nice! I love your emission. How did you get those nice spikes of smoke at the beginning?

Rareden
08-20-2012, 07:22 AM
dont spose fume is compatible with maxwell render, and thats a damn nice blast there.

JohnnyRandom
08-21-2012, 04:27 PM
Nice smoke blending 3ak :)

dont spose fume is compatible with maxwell render

No it is not compatible. Maxwell unfortunately does not support max atmospherics.

Rareden
08-21-2012, 09:49 PM
Nice smoke blending 3ak :)



No it is not compatible. Maxwell unfortunately does not support max atmospherics.


a shame guess i have to do a vray pass for it then

Debneyink
08-21-2012, 10:35 PM
I have to say having been on this thread since fume was released, that's one of the most convincing explosions I've seen come out of anywhere. It'd be good to see without the post filters, just to have a look at the raw render. Good job.

Rareden
08-21-2012, 10:56 PM
oh btw how does one do that post effect where light seems to separate into rgb channels the closer it is to the edge of the screen, see it a lot with cg vids

Debneyink
08-22-2012, 07:11 AM
http://frischluft.com/

box blur works pretty well

Daniel-B
08-22-2012, 02:55 PM
oh btw how does one do that post effect where light seems to separate into rgb channels the closer it is to the edge of the screen, see it a lot with cg vids

The effect you are looking for is called chromatic aberration. Such google for how to do it in your compositing program.

3ak
08-22-2012, 05:48 PM
Thanks for the kind words, guys!
Will try to make some more small-scaled explosions.
1) Could somebody point me to good refs - quality videos/movies?
2) How do you combine fluid sims and tons of debris? Let's say i have several types of them - rbd for bigger ones, instanced points for smaller and facings for the smallest (almost like dust but you can see the "grain"). There is no features for deep compositing in 3ds max (and plugins).
Anybody tried to render small debris with krakatoa volumetric effect? Is it suitable for such things?
Any help will be appreciated.

Rareden
08-23-2012, 01:31 AM
ugh ive hit a wall with my space explosions, any one know a good way of spawing an explosion like with objects and such, im using only particles atm and its not looking that great.

tamagochy
08-23-2012, 08:13 AM
2 3ak

I render dust with krakatoa based on fumeFX sim... Looks good for me...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKnKQgO8qSM&feature=youtu.be

krakatoa particles have constant size and if render debris with it, it will look not naturally i think...

3ak
08-23-2012, 11:51 AM
2 3ak

I render dust with krakatoa based on fumeFX sim... Looks good for me...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKnKQgO8qSM&feature=youtu.be

krakatoa particles have constant size and if render debris with it, it will look not naturally i think...
Thanks. but i'm asking about slightly different things - is there way to render fluids and debris with one renderer and do it faster than 1h per frame. Cause several thousands of facings with opacity will GREATLY slow down render.

Glacierise
08-23-2012, 03:57 PM
What's the problem with VRay and FFX? You can definitely put a lot of geometry in there, I do it every day :)

Daniel-B
08-23-2012, 04:33 PM
What's the problem with VRay and FFX? You can definitely put a lot of geometry in there, I do it every day :)

I don't know about rendering, but when I use RBD debris to perturb a Fume explosion, it takes MUCH longer to sim and uses alot of RAM, due to all the divergent velocities.

3ak
08-23-2012, 04:39 PM
What's the problem with VRay and FFX? You can definitely put a lot of geometry in there, I do it every day :)
As Daniel said it's all about speed) Even without sim times render times grow considerably. Especially when i have alot of particles with facing shape and material with opacity applied.

Debneyink
08-23-2012, 06:18 PM
So, I'm running a sim and then I'm wanting to bring the sim into particle flow.
I do the steps of bringing in the fumefx birth and fumefx follow it all seems to be working.
The particles follow the path of the fume sim but they just sit idle and static once they have been born. I'm not doing something but am not sure what! help needed on this one...

3ak
08-23-2012, 06:21 PM
So, I'm running a sim and then I'm wanting to bring the sim into particle flow.
I do the steps of bringing in the fumefx birth and fumefx follow it all seems to be working.
The particles follow the path of the fume sim but they just sit idle and static once they have been born. I'm not doing something but am not sure what! help needed on this one...
Check if you export Velocity channel in ffx.

Raycat
08-23-2012, 07:03 PM
Time for a stupid question :blush:
I've a clean scene with 1 object which is my FFX-emitter. Everythings sims all right. But when trying to render I get suddenly the error 'Atmospheric "Fusionworks Renderer" is not supported.'
My sim is only fire (no smoke) and rendering with the scanline renderer is ok. It's only MR which gives this error. GI and FG are enabled, I also enabled AutoVolume in the MR settings but no luck. I also removed and added the FusionWorks Renderer in the Atmosphere Effects. Also no luck there...
It seems that adding or removing the Fusionworks renderer effect doesn't influence the FFX rendering, it is alway rendered! I figured out that only enabling FG renders correctly, but the error mentioned above keeps popping up each time I render with MR...


Does anybody has a solution?

Debneyink
08-23-2012, 07:32 PM
yeah i did, as i know you're supposed to but it seemed to not help. so I strarted with a new scene and it seems to work now :)

JohnnyRandom
08-23-2012, 10:08 PM
But when trying to render I get suddenly the error 'Atmospheric "Fusionworks Renderer" is not supported.'


It is just a warning not an error. Fusionworks is used by every render engine BUT Mental Ray it has its own translator. As long as it looks like it is supposed in the frame buffer you have nothing to worry about.

Raycat
08-24-2012, 07:25 AM
It is just a warning not an error. Fusionworks is used by every render engine BUT Mental Ray it has its own translator. As long as it looks like it is supposed in the frame buffer you have nothing to worry about.
Ok thanks for the confirmation. I just found it strange that everything works correctly and MR gives an error. :shrug:

JohnnyRandom
08-24-2012, 03:57 PM
np

Mental Ray does evaluate the Atmospheric because some Atmospherics, such as Volume Light, are supported in MR and by default FumeFX adds the Fusionworks Renderer to the Atmospheric, that is why you see the error.

Rareden
08-25-2012, 02:11 AM
Run into a bit of a snag in a scene, my primary rendering is done using maxwell but i need vray for fumefx but how can i get fumefx to show in the reflections of maxwell?, should i create an hdri map from the vray rendered fume image?

kogden
08-26-2012, 12:04 PM
Hey,

Thought I'd share a quick script for setting fume grids up for creating GI masks to use in comp.

http://www.scriptspot.com/3ds-max/scripts/fumefx-gi-maker

The script pushes the settings onto as many ffx grids that you have selected.

It also can allow you to optimize your ffx rendering and lighting/shadow settings...

Used a similar tool I created for the Ghostrider "Hell-Bagger" Sequence.

At the start of the shot breakdown linked below, the RGB pass is generated via all the fumefx containers in the shot, was rendered in final render and was used in conjunction VRay's diffuse filter element to grade the lighters plate.

http://vimeo.com/kobfx/hellbaggerimpact

Was briefly tested with fumefx 3. Was made with Fumefx 2.1c. Might work with older versions, but haven't tested :curious:.

Hope you find it usefull

Cheers Kieran

marius4199
08-27-2012, 12:48 PM
I have a problem and I would be really happy if someone could help me. As we all now, in FumeFX 3 we can emit colors. Let's say I make 2 smoke emitters, one green and another red. I simulate the smoke, colors mix. What I want to do is export the simulation to PFlow (using FumeFX birth and FumeFX follow) to render in Krakatoa. I check the Color/Hue checkbox in FumeFX Birth operator. And here is a problem: when I render the particles in Krakatoa, they are whatever color is set in the Display operator in PFlow. What should I do to transfer the colors from FumeFX to Krakatoa?

JohnnyRandom
08-27-2012, 05:49 PM
It is in the works, both the FumeFX devs and Thinkbox are aware of it. Post in the official forums of both, the more interest there is in the faster it will get done ;)

max3d2008
08-29-2012, 09:00 AM
Hello all. I have a problem. I need to get fire with motion blur, but if I render image. I got something like that. It seems that is wrong result. How can I solve this problem ?
Fumefx 2.1c, max 2012, scanline render .

Glacierise
08-29-2012, 03:03 PM
Render with Krakatoa :)

max3d2008
08-29-2012, 04:10 PM
Yes it's good solution but we don't have krakatoa in company. May be any other solve ? Actually is it bug or feature )) ?

Glacierise
08-29-2012, 04:17 PM
Another thing you can do is render a velocity element and blur in post - never really worked for me. Or try FFX's image motion blur. But yes, it doesn't work too well :) No real 3d mblur straight from FFX for now, unfortunately.

max3d2008
08-29-2012, 04:32 PM
Motion vectors element looks weird and he has strange values. I'm not understand how I can use it.

JohnnyRandom
08-29-2012, 05:12 PM
What renderer are you using?

We have had good success with Vray mBlur.

max3d2008
08-29-2012, 05:24 PM
I'm used Scanline.

3ak
08-29-2012, 05:43 PM
Motion vectors element looks weird and he has strange values. I'm not understand how I can use it.
What's wrong with ffx velocity pass? It just projection of velocity field to the camera plane - if pixel has zero velocity it will be [127,127,127]. If it moves to the right - increase value in red channel (up to 255), travels left - decrease. Same with G channel (up-down movement).

You can use this pass in Nuke:
If you have 2 sequences - beauty and velocity pass - use ShuffleCopy node to mix rgb and uv channels (uv will be used by mblur) and then use VectorBlur node to actually mblur your image.

You can use something like reelsmart motion blur plugin to use in afterfx.

Tollman
08-29-2012, 07:07 PM
I have issues with the motionvectors pass too (my issue it with afterburn, but it's the same issue in fume, since it is the same renderer), my issue is that i cant get them to be in cameraspace, so that if the smoke is still and the camera is moving, the vectors give me no data. anyone know how to solve this?

JohnnyRandom
08-29-2012, 07:50 PM
Camera multi-pass mblur?

Tollman
08-30-2012, 07:39 AM
hmm.. not too fond of the multipass motionblur, since the rendertime takes a real hit from it, and can you extract motion vectors from such a render?
I was hoping that there was a hidden button somewhere, like the mentalrays scanline option.

DeKo-LT
08-30-2012, 12:40 PM
Sadly, I never had luck with velocity pass from fume (comp with fusion). Maybe with ffx3 effector there is better alternative to render colored passes from velocity, temperature or even distance.

But the only cheap solution by default - reelsmart plugin.

Here is my latest wip with reelsmart:
http://deko.lt/tmp/Forums/explo04_03_original_post4_f055_darkMB_s.jpg
http://vimeo.com/47734710

JohnnyRandom
08-30-2012, 02:35 PM
Well multipass, as long as you generate velocities in Fume, will generate velocities for mBlur, as I have mentioned previously if you use vray, you won't have to use multi-pass, since Chaos has Phoenix they actually bother to make sure that atmospheric mBlur works in world and camera space. Sucky if you don't have vray but IMO every max house that has a seat of FumeFX should also have at least one seat of vray, just as every max house should have one seat of Krakatoa!



Nice one Deko :) Excellent job on the lighting/shader too

silwerfeldt
08-31-2012, 12:17 PM
Can I render out a Normal Pass from FumeFX? Im trying do achieve this in Vray but no luck so far... Wanted to see if I could do some small relighting in Nuke.

max3d2008
08-31-2012, 12:32 PM
I guess you can render a normals using krakatoa.

Cryptite
08-31-2012, 01:32 PM
Dayum Deko, What you did in comp to achieve that from the raw render; I have some tricks to pick up from you my friend. :thumbsup:

JohnnyRandom
08-31-2012, 02:55 PM
Can I render out a Normal Pass from FumeFX? Im trying do achieve this in Vray but no luck so far... Wanted to see if I could do some small relighting in Nuke.

Unless as mentioned, you use Krakatoa, no you can't. I am not much for comp and new techniques emerge all the time, that said, I believe the closest you are going to get with straight Fume is via RGB passes, and/or a density pass.

Daniel-B
09-04-2012, 05:42 AM
Nice Explosion Shader. Although this was done in Houdini, this is exactly the type of look I've been trying to get with Fume but have not been unsuccessful. This guy wrote his own black body shader for the fire. I think it looks fantastic...

https://vimeo.com/48671184

Raycat
09-04-2012, 07:32 AM
Here is my latest wip with reelsmart:
http://deko.lt/tmp/Forums/explo04_03_original_post4_f055_darkMB_s.jpg
http://vimeo.com/47734710

I think that looks great! Also very nice detail in the fire. I love it!
Might buy it to see the scene ;-)

DeKo-LT
09-05-2012, 09:17 AM
Thanks everyone! :)

Cryptite, Raycat:
for any special questions, contact me privately, I will explain, as much as I can.

ThallDesign
09-05-2012, 03:07 PM
Well goodbye $99

AdrienSliver
09-09-2012, 09:50 PM
Impressive work Deko :D

JohnnyRandom
09-10-2012, 04:42 PM
Well goodbye $99

LOL caught me kinda funny in a semi-ironic kinda way IMO I think a $99 well spent :)

How many hours would it take you to duplicate that scene to figure it out? My guess is at the very least by an experienced user 2-4 hours and on average by an average user all the way up to 30 hours. So in all reality 99 bucks is cheap AND you can use it as is ;)

OR are you saying since Deko is helping them that HE is out $99? I suspect :wise:

DeKo-LT
09-10-2012, 08:52 PM
Thanks John :thumbsup:

Actually this my first try to look if market have a demand for such things. Unfortunately - no. I have entire 2 sells and this is my last paid item. Sadly, is better to give away for free :D

JokerMartini
09-10-2012, 09:13 PM
... as I have mentioned previously if you use vray, you won't have to use multi-pass, since Chaos has Phoenix they actually bother to make sure that atmospheric mBlur works in world and camera space....

I'm currently running an seat of Vray and I see you mentioned about the rendering of FumeFX with mBlur using Vray. What settings need to be adjust or properties needs to be simmed in order to create proper mblur without using the multipass method?

By default, does turning on vrays motion blur work? Or do I have to sim smoke with velocties channel as well?

JokerMartini
09-11-2012, 11:50 PM
Along with the post previous to this one does anyone know why or what would cause these horizontal bandings in my render of clouds?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNt-xd9vdTE&feature=youtu.be

You'll notice in the video that I simmed the clouds and then keyed the time scale down to a real low number to allow the smoke to continue to billow and curl.

amckay
09-12-2012, 12:13 AM
Do you have any velocity dampening?

JokerMartini
09-12-2012, 12:18 AM
I have Velocity Dampening keyed as well. It's initially off and then it gets keyed On at 1.0 for two frames, and then it returns to 0.0

I also Key my Turbulence from .2 to 0.0. So there is no turbulence when I freeze it.

If someone wants to take a look at the file I can post it, just let me know. My first thought was the grid size was not detailed enough, but even in low quality sims I've done in the past I've never got that banding.

amckay
09-12-2012, 12:31 AM
velocity dampening can cause streakyness. IT's something to be wary of. You might want to try to animate your timescale down or something instead and see if that helps cushion the velocity's a little.

JokerMartini
09-12-2012, 12:38 AM
Alright I'll that making the velocity dampening a bit less as well. Instead of keying it from 0 - 1 Ill attempt 0 - .5.
I'll let you know what my results end up being with it.

Do you think it would help much to increase the detail of the sim by making the spacing smaller?

JohnnyRandom
09-12-2012, 01:39 AM
I'm currently running an seat of Vray and I see you mentioned about the rendering of FumeFX with mBlur using Vray. What settings need to be adjust or properties needs to be simmed in order to create proper mblur without using the multipass method?

By default, does turning on vrays motion blur work? Or do I have to sim smoke with velocties channel as well?

Just turn on camera motion blur in Vray and you do not need to export velocities.

Raycat
09-12-2012, 09:24 AM
Thanks everyone! :)

Cryptite, Raycat:
for any special questions, contact me privately, I will explain, as much as I can.
Deko, I've sent you an email. If you prefer another adress/method, please let me know.

kogden
09-12-2012, 01:46 PM
I'm currently running an seat of Vray and I see you mentioned about the rendering of FumeFX with mBlur using Vray. What settings need to be adjust or properties needs to be simmed in order to create proper mblur without using the multipass method?

By default, does turning on vrays motion blur work? Or do I have to sim smoke with velocties channel as well?

JRand is right! just turn mblur on, and it should be fine for camera motion blur. Just render it with the same mblur settings as the lighting pass.

I would also recommend on having a separate element for fumefx's velocity channel. This will give you blur in relation to fluid as well as blur in relation to the camera.

This can be done the following way.

Simulated with velocity channel saving to the .fxd.

In the environment panel, select the "fusionworks renderer" in the "atmosphere" rollout. Check "create channels" ON. Tick "Image Motion Blur" ON.

In "Render setup", "render elements" tab. Add a FusionWorks Velocity.

This part is rather important! and make or break the vector pass... Mainly because its dependent on the speed at which your fluid in moving inside of the container....

Select the fusion works velocity element, there's one parameter... "Max. Velocity" default is 10.0cm (or respective conversion into your favorite unit scale)... This is probably the most stupid default setting that comes with fumefx... This is because about most things you do, they travel faster then that easily.... I find values between 500.0cm to 1000cm as good starting point... particularly for explosions and fast moving fluid, but its not a bad to go higher, even upto 10000.0 cm. At least you wont "clip" fastest vectors in the fluid... You should test render this, and if you get large portions of flat color its probably clipped.... FYI, the mid point of this pass (as mention before in the thread), is rgb 128,128,128, so everything that's not fluid will be grey.

Use this pass on top of the camera motion blur and you should get some nearly seamless integration into your plate.

If you have a good Velocity pass, the vector blur node should work without any channel flipping.

Cheers Kieran

kogden
09-12-2012, 02:33 PM
Ok, so Ive also hacked together a basic example of how the velocity channel works with fume, specifically in Nuke 6.3 and above....

Below is a link to a .rar of 2 images and a little nuke script. Nothing to special, but might help you understand the output from fumefx, and how it should work in Nuke...

Download Example: (http://www.kobfx.com/VectorExample_01.rar)

Cheers Kieran

JokerMartini
09-12-2012, 03:25 PM
Ok, so Ive also hacked together a basic example of how the velocity channel works with fume, specifically in Nuke 6.3 and above....

Below is a link to a .rar of 2 images and a little nuke script. Nothing to special, but might help you understand the output from fumefx, and how it should work in Nuke...

Download Example: (http://www.kobfx.com/VectorExample_01.rar)

Cheers Kieran

Thank you very much Kieran for your explanation and example file. It sure has helped.
I've attached an example file to just make a sample of a simulation. What I'm looking for is the correct way the smoke should look in the velocity pass. I've got it set to a low number because my simulation is low but it doesn't seems to return the correct results when comped.
check it out if you can. Thank you guys for all the help.

John

JokerMartini
09-12-2012, 08:48 PM
Smoke

So this may seem like a rather general and amateur question but I was curious to know if anyone has come up with a good rule of thumb for when its good to turn up the smoke opacity under the render settings vs increase the smoke amount on the source?

I've always had a conflict in which way to go with this?

max3d2008
09-13-2012, 10:55 AM
Hello. May be anybody know how I can rotate the gravity vector along spline (curve) ? I suppose it possible only using script ?

3ak
09-13-2012, 12:54 PM
Smoke

So this may seem like a rather general and amateur question but I was curious to know if anyone has come up with a good rule of thumb for when its good to turn up the smoke opacity under the render settings vs increase the smoke amount on the source?

I've always had a conflict in which way to go with this?

Opacity is just the render setting but amount of smoke (density) is a bit more physical property. At least it will be harder for buoyancy to lift smoke up.
So i think if you're happy with the result in overall it's better to crank up alpha (opacity in fumefx render properties) in comp then alter the sim.

Mokiki
09-13-2012, 01:32 PM
Just turn on camera motion blur in Vray and you do not need to export velocities.

And here I thought vray won't render any mblur with fumefx. oO At least I never managed to make it work. I only ever got mblur using scanline.

Using FumeFX 3 and Vray 2.3 (And yes both legal licenses)

3ak
09-13-2012, 01:48 PM
Hello. May be anybody know how I can rotate the gravity vector along spline (curve) ? I suppose it possible only using script ?

Use path constraint and turn on Follow, Bank checkboxes and choose right axis below.

JohnnyRandom
09-13-2012, 05:41 PM
I assume you are talking about orbiting the Path?

If so, mmnn rigging, a simple two stage rig will do it. You just need to rig it properly.

Adjust the Green Point Helpers Second key for the length duration down the spline.
Adjust the Red Point Helpers second key for the orbit duration.

Here is a example:
The Green Helper is Path Constrained to the Spline. The Red Helper is first rotated one full rotation on the X-Axis, then the Out Of Range Types are set to loop. This Helper is then aligned and Link to the Green Helper and done. In the example I linked a PF Source to the Red Helper to illustrate.

https://vimeo.com/49399238

rajted
09-13-2012, 07:31 PM
I assume you are talking about orbiting the Path?

If so, mmnn rigging, a simple two stage rig will do it. You just need to rig it properly.

Adjust the Green Point Helpers Second key for the length duration down the spline.
Adjust the Red Point Helpers second key for the orbit duration.

Here is a example:
The Green Helper is Path Constrained to the Spline. The Red Helper is first rotated one full rotation on the X-Axis, then the Out Of Range Types are set to loop. This Helper is then aligned and Link to the Green Helper and done. In the example I linked a PF Source to the Red Helper to illustrate.

https://vimeo.com/49399238
Thanks!! John :bowdown:

JokerMartini
09-13-2012, 11:02 PM
Whats the best way to light a render a vast blanket of clouds? My render times are crazy long. Check them out.

1 Cloud
1 Spotlight
Hotspot/Falloff radius of 400.0cm
Shadow Maps
14 Seconds

12 Clouds
1 Spotlight
Hotspot/Falloff radius of 6000.0cm
Shadow Maps
20 Minutes

adom86
09-14-2012, 01:02 PM
Ok, so Ive also hacked together a basic example of how the velocity channel works with fume, specifically in Nuke 6.3 and above....

Below is a link to a .rar of 2 images and a little nuke script. Nothing to special, but might help you understand the output from fumefx, and how it should work in Nuke...

Download Example: (http://www.kobfx.com/VectorExample_01.rar)

Cheers Kieran

Thanks Kieran

I've been baffled by the vector blur in nuke. Turns out what I was doing wrong was just using a copy instead of shuffle copy ! simple thing, but works correctly now :D

kogden
09-15-2012, 02:26 AM
Thank you very much Kieran for your explanation and example file. It sure has helped.
I've attached an example file to just make a sample of a simulation. What I'm looking for is the correct way the smoke should look in the velocity pass. I've got it set to a low number because my simulation is low but it doesn't seems to return the correct results when comped.
check it out if you can. Thank you guys for all the help.

John

Attached is the velocity channel, one with your settings (max velocity 50cm) and one with it adjusted (max velocity 1500cm). With your settings the its "clipping" aross large areas of the fluid, if you increase the max velocity, it give it more room to have an accurate representation of the velocity.

You can test this when you render, in the VFB you can right click and see the pixel values, look at float and 16bit to see the values, compare the lower settings vs the higher setting and you'll notice the difference.

Whats the best way to light a render a vast blanket of clouds? My render times are crazy long. Check them out.

1 Cloud1 Spotlight
Hotspot/Falloff radius of 400.0cm
Shadow Maps
14 Seconds 12 Clouds1 Spotlight
Hotspot/Falloff radius of 6000.0cm
Shadow Maps
20 Minutes


Whats basically happening is that you're shadowmap generation is tanking the render, I'd recommend having more lights with a smaller Hotspot/Falloff radius (as the large this is the heavier the render gets). or if you're like me, and lazy..... undersample your illumination map (undersample/threshold. this value is a percentage of voxel it will skip, be care with this though, as it can possibly invoke flicker.) I have found this to speed renders up by 75% with values of 0.25 (skips every 4th voxel is my udnerstanding).

Also with this, it could get annoying to set render settings on so many containers... this tool will let you change all these value on selected containers, just tick off the "smoke and fire color" and "GI mulitpiers" and it'll just push render optimization settings on :)

http://www.scriptspot.com/3ds-max/scripts/fumefx-gi-maker

Hope that helps :)

Cheers Kieran

ThallDesign
09-19-2012, 04:07 AM
LOL caught me kinda funny in a semi-ironic kinda way IMO I think a $99 well spent :)

How many hours would it take you to duplicate that scene to figure it out? My guess is at the very least by an experienced user 2-4 hours and on average by an average user all the way up to 30 hours. So in all reality 99 bucks is cheap AND you can use it as is ;)

OR are you saying since Deko is helping them that HE is out $99? I suspect :wise:

I meant goodbye to my money, I definitely intend to buy this once I get settled into my new apartment. (Bed sets and new desks are expensive, and I buy the cheap stuff! I don't know what sort of insane person spends $200 on bed sheets but that's a topic for a different forum.) $99 is a freakin' steal to be able to pull the .max file apart and see what was done.

DanFX
09-22-2012, 08:24 PM
Hey Guys,

I've thrown together a new reel with some of the stuff I've done while working at Blur for the past couple years. Seems like about 80% of it is Fume, so thought I'd post this here for y'all to have a look.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FuusujmMUo

-Dan

fireknght2
09-22-2012, 08:45 PM
Loved the demo Reel Dan Inspirational and sets the bar for us, Thanks for sharing.

Rich

AdrienSliver
09-22-2012, 08:50 PM
awesome reel ! great works, very dynamic

rajted
09-22-2012, 08:54 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FuusujmMUo

-Dan
Amazing reel!! congrats Dan :beer:

JokerMartini
09-23-2012, 07:22 PM
Attached is the velocity channel, one with your settings (max velocity 50cm) and one with it adjusted (max velocity 1500cm). With your settings the its "clipping" aross large areas of the fluid, if you increase the max velocity, it give it more room to have an accurate representation of the velocity.

You can test this when you render, in the VFB you can right click and see the pixel values, look at float and 16bit to see the values, compare the lower settings vs the higher setting and you'll notice the difference.




Whats basically happening is that you're shadowmap generation is tanking the render, I'd recommend having more lights with a smaller Hotspot/Falloff radius (as the large this is the heavier the render gets). or if you're like me, and lazy..... undersample your illumination map (undersample/threshold. this value is a percentage of voxel it will skip, be care with this though, as it can possibly invoke flicker.) I have found this to speed renders up by 75% with values of 0.25 (skips every 4th voxel is my udnerstanding).

Also with this, it could get annoying to set render settings on so many containers... this tool will let you change all these value on selected containers, just tick off the "smoke and fire color" and "GI mulitpiers" and it'll just push render optimization settings on :)

http://www.scriptspot.com/3ds-max/scripts/fumefx-gi-maker

Hope that helps :)

Cheers Kieran

Thank you very much for the explination and help with this. It makes complete sense. I've been able to knock down the render times quite a bit. I've written a script which duplicates the light and adjust the size of the light to match that of the the selected number of sim boxes, then adds that light to the sim box illumination panel. So then there is a set of lights for each sim box. It's annoying it has to be this way but it worked great.
Thanks again guys. I'll have some renders to show you very soon.
John

Daniel-B
09-25-2012, 11:16 PM
Hey guys. I'm trying to do some oil fire, but I can't get the smoke dissipation to behave like I want. Does anyone have some magic settings for some nice dissipation? The video below is about what I'm trying to do, and I think it looks fantastic.

https://vimeo.com/32698939

AdrienSliver
09-26-2012, 03:08 PM
It's not sure but you can try try about smoke :
Dissipation Min. Dens : 0.01 and Dissipation Strength : 0.1

nidas
09-26-2012, 06:40 PM
Hey guys. I'm trying to do some oil fire, but I can't get the smoke dissipation to behave like I want. Does anyone have some magic settings for some nice dissipation? The video below is about what I'm trying to do, and I think it looks fantastic.

https://vimeo.com/32698939

The video is really cool. Does he us particles emitter or how does he get the twisting curling smoke at the bottom? Cant really mimic that style... Any help would be much appreciated.

Sorry for not contributing and I hope its ok to Hijack your question...

Cheers

Daniel-B
09-27-2012, 08:31 PM
Question guys. I am trying to simulate an oil fire, but I can't seem to get a nice pyroclastic shape out of it. I'm able to get pyroclastic like smoke easily with my explosion sims, but because this sim has such hard directional wind, I believe it's smearing my detail horizontally. Does anyone know what I can do about this?

I have a pic below. As you can see toward the front side of the smoke, it looks nice and smoky. Toward the back, it looks streaky and smeary.

http://i.imgur.com/nl4Wo.jpg

JokerMartini
10-04-2012, 02:33 PM
Hey guys,
Here is my latest render of my clouds, there is a slight error in a depth change but aside from that it's coming together rather nicely.

https://vimeo.com/50759554

http://jokermartini.com/myStuff/cloud.jpg

AdrienSliver
10-04-2012, 03:21 PM
I like a lot your cloud, nice work !

amckay
10-04-2012, 05:25 PM
Looks great! Nice job!


Hey guys,
Here is my latest render of my clouds, there is a slight error in a depth change but aside from that it's coming together rather nicely.

https://vimeo.com/50759554

http://jokermartini.com/myStuff/cloud.jpg

JokerMartini
10-04-2012, 06:07 PM
Thanks guys for the comments.
I saw you have recently come out with a cloud tutorial through maxunderground Allan, I'll have to check that out and see your process for setting these organic fluids up.


I'm still working on them a bit, I'll be sure the post the final once it's completed.

Daniel-B
10-08-2012, 11:03 PM
Does anyone know how to emit Fume from the fractured interiors of an object? Since Fume Object Sources only seem to support maps, how I do make fume emit smoke from the interior fractures instead of over the surface of the entire object?

JokerMartini
10-08-2012, 11:37 PM
You could set the inside fractures to a different map channel number and use that to drive the fumeFX emission.

Option two if you want to do the above method but then generate a particle system using position object and then restrict it to that map channel. With that you can then use fumeFX particle source.

Just some quick ideas. I'll look into it more as well.

JohnnyRandom
10-09-2012, 12:25 AM
Easiest - Cache object source object and map particles to the inside faces. Way more control, you can easily stop your emission too.

Hardest - Add a Vertex Paint to your object, set it to Map Channel (#some Number) the default will be white, paint black where you do not want emission. In the object source set channel emission to "Intensity" or RG or B whatever you decided to paint. Add a vertex color map.

I would guess to say that option #1 is a faster sim too.


EDIT: Nice clouds Mr. Martini ;)

JoeBananas
10-11-2012, 12:13 AM
just tried to access the afterworks site, and found it was blocked by google.

This was the info page:

has anyone else had this?
Safe Browsing

Diagnostic page for afterworks.com

What is the current listing status for afterworks.com?

Site is listed as suspicious - visiting this website may harm your computer.

Part of this site was listed for suspicious activity 2 time(s) over the past 90 days.

What happened when Google visited this site?

Of the 28 pages we tested on the site over the past 90 days, 18 page(s) resulted in malicious software being downloaded and installed without user consent. The last time Google visited this site was on 2012-10-10, and the last time suspicious content was found on this site was on 2012-10-10.Malicious software is hosted on 1 domain(s), including jbk49.com/ (http://safebrowsing.clients.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?client=Firefox&hl=en-GB&site=jbk49.com/).

1 domain(s) appear to be functioning as intermediaries for distributing malware to visitors of this site, including fenwaywest.com/ (http://safebrowsing.clients.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?client=Firefox&hl=en-GB&site=fenwaywest.com/).

This site was hosted on 2 network(s) including AS20773 (HOSTEUROPE) (http://safebrowsing.clients.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?client=Firefox&hl=en-GB&site=AS:20773), AS15169 (Google Internet Backbone) (http://safebrowsing.clients.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?client=Firefox&hl=en-GB&site=AS:15169).

Has this site acted as an intermediary resulting in further distribution of malware?

Over the past 90 days, afterworks.com did not appear to function as an intermediary for the infection of any sites.

Has this site hosted malware?

No, this site has not hosted malicious software over the past 90 days.

How did this happen?

In some cases, third parties can add malicious code to legitimate sites, which would cause us to show the warning message.

Next steps:


Return to the previous page. (http://safebrowsing.clients.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?client=Firefox&hl=en-GB&site=http://www.afterworks.com/MEMBERS/FumeFX.asp?ID=3#)
If you are the owner of this website, you can request a review of your site using Google Webmaster Tools (http://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/). More information about the review process is available in Google's Webmaster Help Centre (http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=45432).

JohnnyRandom
10-11-2012, 12:38 AM
Yeah the user forum, member login, and beta site all see this, I think there server host got hammered by bad guys.

I emailed Kreso this morning, since it is 2:30 in the morning where he is I wouldn't expect to here back until at least tomorrow at the earliest.

JoeBananas
10-11-2012, 01:05 AM
owch, sounds pretty bad - hope they can get it up and running again soon.

Daniel-B
10-12-2012, 05:03 PM
Does anyone know how to fill up an object with smoke? Basically, if I have the letter S, and I want to fill the geo S with smoke, I am trying to have the smoke come into a hole in the bottom, and fill it up.

However, it tends to spill back out the bottom, and only a small amount of smoke actually rises into the letter. Does anyone have a suggestion on how to achieve this?

DanFX
10-12-2012, 11:42 PM
To fill an object, I'd put a shell on the geometry, and potentially increase sim steps if the fume is moving pretty fast, to keep it from seeping out the sides. You may even be able to set the shelled geometry's object type to Solid when you add it to the fume sim, which may also help keep the fume from escaping.

I'd also avoid any holes in the geometry if you can, and leave the emission within the shelled geo, just in case.

I filled a sphere with fume a few months ago doing this with a simple emitter and a shelled geo-sphere. worked surprisingly well. Smoke curled around the sides and filled it with some pretty cool motion and nothing seeping out.

-Dan

JohnnyRandom
10-13-2012, 01:29 AM
owch, sounds pretty bad - hope they can get it up and running again soon.

All better now :)

alexhalstead
10-22-2012, 01:09 AM
I've finally made some time to start doing FX breakdowns for my shots from Ghost Rider 2. As they contain a tonne of fume, I thought i'd share it here. More to come soon...

https://vimeo.com/51842283

Cheers

kegui123
10-22-2012, 07:22 AM
every body ,fume fx moire problem,please help me,thxhttp://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/578356_294841750631719_1715574292_n.jpg

alexhalstead
10-22-2012, 11:11 AM
every body ,fume fx moire problem,please help me,thx

In my experience, this issue comes up when your smoke density values are too high. Basically, your shadows can't penetrate through the volume properly so they start stacking up in voxelised shapes. I'd recommend either re-simming with much less smoke in your emitter or substantially lowering your smoke opacity in the render tab.

kegui123
10-23-2012, 06:03 AM
thx very much! i solve the promblem ! thx again!:bowdown:

JokerMartini
10-23-2012, 02:38 PM
Problem here.
I've got a max scene with 15 fume sim boxes in it and its the same fume box instanced around the scene. It takes one sim box by itself around 45 seconds to render. Where as when i display all 15 of the boxes and hit render it takes exponentially longer to load all the fume boxes in order to render. I do not have a time for this render never even started. It just hung on the first render buckets throughout the night and never finished a single one. Do you guys have any idea or ways around this?

The sim box is just loaded one frame into it. It is not an animated cache even.

alexhalstead
10-25-2012, 09:55 AM
Problem here.
I've got a max scene with 15 fume sim boxes in it and its the same fume box instanced around the scene. It takes one sim box by itself around 45 seconds to render. Where as when i display all 15 of the boxes and hit render it takes exponentially longer to load all the fume boxes in order to render. I do not have a time for this render never even started. It just hung on the first render buckets throughout the night and never finished a single one. Do you guys have any idea or ways around this?

The sim box is just loaded one frame into it. It is not an animated cache even.

Hey John, from the sounds of it and from past experience, it's probably hitting a bottle neck when it has to compute and load the illumination maps/multiscattering for multiple fume grids. So if possible, try and split the render into a few passes or optimize your fume grid settings so you don't get a huge overhead at render time.

Also Fume 3.5 was released today! There is an update with a MultiScattering option to cast and receive which apparently lowers computation overhead. Worth a try!

There are also a tonne of awesome updates to check out, Kresmir is kicking ass!

http://www.afterworks.com/FumeFX/Whatsnew.asp?ID=2 (http://www.afterworks.com/FumeFX/Whatsnew.asp?ID=2)

Debneyink
10-25-2012, 02:02 PM
Hi,

been a while since i've done anything with fume...

so I'm embarking on creating a slow large powerful nuke

here's what I got after an hour: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0Bz_ckyrII&feature=youtu.be


first thing im not sure about is the stripes within the fire seem to stutter and have a grid look to them it looks to uniform

and id like to slow down the emission and size of the smoke tendrils to give it scale

any help/tips would be much appreciated and ill update the next version

thanks

debneyink


http://christiandebney.com/about.html

JokerMartini
10-25-2012, 02:15 PM
Hey John, from the sounds of it and from past experience, it's probably hitting a bottle neck when it has to compute and load the illumination maps/multiscattering for multiple fume grids. So if possible, try and split the render into a few passes or optimize your fume grid settings so you don't get a huge overhead at render time.

Also Fume 3.5 was released today! There is an update with a MultiScattering option to cast and receive which apparently lowers computation overhead. Worth a try!

There are also a tonne of awesome updates to check out, Kresmir is kicking ass!

http://www.afterworks.com/FumeFX/Whatsnew.asp?ID=2 (http://www.afterworks.com/FumeFX/Whatsnew.asp?ID=2)

Thanks for the update. I'll check it out and see what I can do.

Daniel-B
10-25-2012, 04:59 PM
So, I am trying to create a directional explosion, and I could use some advice. I know how to create general explosions pretty well, but I need it to VERY directional, like a battleship firing it's deck guns. I need it to travel upward at a 60ish degree angle.

How would you guys approach this? I tried directional sources, but it reads as such, and begins to "mushroom" as the velocity reaches too much. I think I might try putting the emitter in cylinder geometry and try to get the pressure to "push" it like a real cannon would.

Any suggestions would be appreciated. :)

fireknght2
10-25-2012, 08:01 PM
Thanks for the update. I'll check it out and see what I can do.

Joker I recently did a scene with multiple candle flames using FumeFX, I found issues when using instance so I used copy instead. I had 30+ candle flames that all functioned and rendered without an issue.
I'm not a pro with FumeFX but this was what I ran into.

Rich

JokerMartini
10-25-2012, 08:11 PM
Thank you guys for your suggestions.

I'm rendering dozens of sim boxes but I've broken them up into sections of 12 at a time.

I was doing tests on 2 sim boxes which were around 5 minutes a frame down to 1:30 m/s a frame.

Noe the longest part of my render is, what the render dialog calls "Updating FumeFXXX". What exactly is that doing? Loading in the cache I'm assume?

Does anyone know of anyways to speed that process up? I'm narrowing in on the problem and I believe that is it. The render of the scene is simple. Just 2 lights and 12 sim boxes.

Daniel-B
10-25-2012, 10:55 PM
Thank you guys for your suggestions.

I'm rendering dozens of sim boxes but I've broken them up into sections of 12 at a time.

I was doing tests on 2 sim boxes which were around 5 minutes a frame down to 1:30 m/s a frame.

Noe the longest part of my render is, what the render dialog calls "Updating FumeFXXX". What exactly is that doing? Loading in the cache I'm assume?

Does anyone know of anyways to speed that process up? I'm narrowing in on the problem and I believe that is it. The render of the scene is simple. Just 2 lights and 12 sim boxes.

Have you tried post processing your cache? You can strip out channels you don't need for rendering and minimize your grid.

JokerMartini
10-25-2012, 11:01 PM
rendered 500 sim boxes with each containing a cache of around 800Mb each using the new fileformat f3d. When using the default fumeFX cache.....no render at all.

90 sim boxes took around 5 minutes. The 600 took a few hours.

Thanks guys!

JohnnyRandom
10-26-2012, 01:09 AM
Problem here.
I've got a max scene with 15 fume sim boxes in it and its the same fume box instanced around the scene.

There are some issues surrounding instanced grids and/or source object, it it recommended to make copies instead. It is being looked into, I haven't had time to check in it in the final 3.5 build to see if it has been fixed.

fireknght2
10-26-2012, 01:52 AM
There are some issues surrounding instanced grids and/or source object, it it recommended to make copies instead. It is being looked into, I haven't had time to check in it in the final 3.5 build to see if it has been fixed.
Exactly what I said, Instanced FumeFX would not work for me but making Copies did. It does take a bit of time and the 3dsMax file is quite large but it renders beautifully. I have not had the opportunity to check the update but I hope they have fixed it as well.

Glacierise
10-26-2012, 01:55 AM
So, I am trying to create a directional explosion, and I could use some advice. I know how to create general explosions pretty well, but I need it to VERY directional, like a battleship firing it's deck guns. I need it to travel upward at a 60ish degree angle.

How would you guys approach this? I tried directional sources, but it reads as such, and begins to "mushroom" as the velocity reaches too much. I think I might try putting the emitter in cylinder geometry and try to get the pressure to "push" it like a real cannon would.

Any suggestions would be appreciated. :)

I find it very useful to have a very high turbulence for a few frames after it fires, breaks up the mushrooms, then drop the timescale for the swirling after.

JohnnyRandom
10-26-2012, 03:25 PM
I find it very useful to have a very high turbulence for a few frames after it fires, breaks up the mushrooms, then drop the timescale for the swirling after.

And/Or localize it with an Effectorizor :)

Glacierise
10-26-2012, 03:51 PM
Yeah with effectors you can localize the turb to the high velocities or temperatures. That is sooooooooo useful!

Daniel-B
10-26-2012, 06:27 PM
Speaking of effectors and vorticity/turbulence...in an explosion, wouldn't the fire be more vortic (is that a word?) and turbulating(word?) than the smoke? Since the fire is hotter, in my mind it would be swirling more than the smoke.

So I was thinking about having an effector on the fire channel make it a vorticity of 1, and just have the regular grid on the smoke have a vorticity of about 0.5-0.6. This makes sense in my head at least. :)

fireknght2
10-26-2012, 10:19 PM
Speaking of effectors and vorticity/turbulence...in an explosion, wouldn't the fire be more vortic (is that a word?) and turbulating(word?) than the smoke? Since the fire is hotter, in my mind it would be swirling more than the smoke.

So I was thinking about having an effector on the fire channel make it a vorticity of 1, and just have the regular grid on the smoke have a vorticity of about 0.5-0.6. This makes sense in my head at least. :)

It is my experience (firefighter) that the smoke will be more turbulent as the fire typically creates it's own wind. Fire will follow the Oxygen, and the Fuel as long as the heat source is present. Smoke tends to move all over the place. Usually where ever I sit at the campfire is where the smoke goes ...LOL

Daniel-B
10-26-2012, 11:05 PM
It is my experience (firefighter) that the smoke will be more turbulent as the fire typically creates it's own wind. Fire will follow the Oxygen, and the Fuel as long as the heat source is present. Smoke tends to move all over the place. Usually where ever I sit at the campfire is where the smoke goes ...LOL

But is it not true that hotter air (i.e. fire) will create more turbulence than cooler (i.e. smoke)? I could be mistaken, but this was my assumption. Whenever I see very turbulent smoke, it seems to be the result of coming directly out of a very turbulent flame.

fireknght2
10-27-2012, 12:00 AM
But is it not true that hotter air (i.e. fire) will create more turbulence than cooler (i.e. smoke)? I could be mistaken, but this was my assumption. Whenever I see very turbulent smoke, it seems to be the result of coming directly out of a very turbulent flame.
Smoke is typically considered the byproduct of combustion, so fire will effect the smoke by the winds or turbulence it creates. Fire can be turbulent as well but you normally see the smoke as the most turbulent. That's not to say that fire can't be turbulent especially in the case of a fire tornado, and fire can be turbulent in a rollover where as you see fire rolling across a ceiling etc. Flashover is a smoke explosion so that's not fire turbulence its hot gases exposed to oxygen rapidly. Smoke can be greatly affected by heat and the turbulence created by the fire itself. Let's not forget that some fires can burn very hot so much so there is no smoke, alcohol, Sterno cans are all examples of a fuel that burns very hot and typically no smoke. Many factors affect fire and smoke mostly the type of fuel, the type of heat, and the amount of oxygen. Some would also say that the Chain reaction involved to create fire may also effect the Fire and smoke. In my observation of fire I think it moves according to the oxygen and it gets turbulent when searching for it.

3ak
10-27-2012, 07:38 AM
afaik there is only ONE velocity field under the ffx's hood. Vorticity is computed using this field. So there is no fire or smoke turbulence. If fire is in the voxel - then it gets this computed vorticity, if smoke - smoke gets. The only difference MAY be in shader, where for smoke and fire there are slightly different mappings of the temp and velocity values.

Daniel-B
10-27-2012, 10:53 PM
afaik there is only ONE velocity field under the ffx's hood. Vorticity is computed using this field. So there is no fire or smoke turbulence. If fire is in the voxel - then it gets this computed vorticity, if smoke - smoke gets. The only difference MAY be in shader, where for smoke and fire there are slightly different mappings of the temp and velocity values.

True, but I was talking about in reality. If you watch a standard hollywood movie explosion (a real one) it seems the fire is much more turbulent, and after it burns off, you have a nice soft rolling black smoke which doesn't seem as turbulent and violent as the fireball it came from.

I'm running explosion effector tests actually right now which one has a lower vorticity on fire (0.3) and the smoke is at 0.6. On the other test, the fire vorticity is 0.8, and the smoke is again at 0.6.

I will post my findings. :)

fireknght2
10-28-2012, 02:48 AM
True, but I was talking about in reality. If you watch a standard hollywood movie explosion (a real one) it seems the fire is much more turbulent, and after it burns off, you have a nice soft rolling black smoke which doesn't seem as turbulent and violent as the fireball it came from.

I'm running explosion effector tests actually right now which one has a lower vorticity on fire (0.3) and the smoke is at 0.6. On the other test, the fire vorticity is 0.8, and the smoke is again at 0.6.

I will post my findings. :)

I can't wait to see the results Daniel-B. Hollywood Fire is a control based fire using several forms of pyrotechnics. They use different chemicals and fuels to either get more fire or more smoke. Again in real fire smoke is determined on fuel and oxygen fire is based on heat fuel and oxygen. With FumeFx we can actually create better realistic fire than Hollywood's real (pyrotechnic) fire, its a matter of hitting that right setting. I wished I had a helmet cam on when I entered fires to share real life fires for everyone for reference. When someone tells you fire is alive it is true, and it has a mind of it's own.

Rich

JokerMartini
10-29-2012, 09:54 PM
So I've simmed a cloud with the desired settings and whatnot. I'm pleased with the look and feel of the cloud as well. The only problem is that when I scale the cloud both larger and smaller than it's original 100% size, I get odd looking results. Now is there a way or settings I need to be aware of when change the size of the fumeFX box to better max the original cloud which is represented at 100%?

The image helps make more sense. I want the scaled cloud to look exactly like the cloud at 100%, but just scaled larger in the scene. I'm not understanding clearly why it changes so much in appearance?

http://jokermartini.com/myStuff/cloudScale.jpg

floopyb
10-29-2012, 10:23 PM
It looks like the density is changing with the scale. Try increasing the render opacity in the smoke the same proportion that you are scaling the fume grid down, or vice verca.

Be careful when you scale as your global step size gets affected too, so you may see render slowdowns/ render artifacts depending on which way/how much you scale.

JokerMartini
10-29-2012, 10:26 PM
Yeah I ended up changing the opacity.
I scaled the sim box from 100 to 1000
so i changed the opacity of the smoke from .75 to .075 and it fixed it exactly.
Only problem is the 1000 sized sim box takes 8 minutes to render where as the 100 takes 54 seconds.

floopyb
10-29-2012, 10:28 PM
Only problem is the 1000 sized sim box takes 8 minutes to render where as the 100 takes 54 seconds.

read my edit of the above post! :)

PsychoSilence
10-29-2012, 10:32 PM
also check your render steps size! Might look similar with lower settings when scaled bigger or smaller.

ibl3d
10-30-2012, 01:06 AM
Hi guys, can someone help me with this problem

http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/1182/errortth.jpg

I dont want to change advection mode to advanced

Thanks

floopyb
10-30-2012, 01:44 AM
You could try a few things...
Play a little with your opacity curves/ high+low threshold so the densitys dont end so harshly.
Try playing with the jitter amount... more will diffuse the lines but might look funny if you push it too far.
Try turning you shadow bias on your lights up a little.

Otherwise you may have to look at simming a higher res grid or using WT to get the grid higher res.

ibl3d
10-30-2012, 01:50 AM
You could try a few things...
Play a little with your opacity curves/ high+low threshold so the densitys dont end so harshly.
Try playing with the jitter amount... more will diffuse the lines but might look funny if you push it too far.
Try turning you shadow bias on your lights up a little.

Otherwise you may have to look at simming a higher res grid or using WT to get the grid higher res.
Thanks Floopyb

I will check it .
Excuse my English

Glacierise
10-30-2012, 01:57 AM
So I've simmed a cloud with the desired settings and whatnot. I'm pleased with the look and feel of the cloud as well. The only problem is that when I scale the cloud both larger and smaller than it's original 100% size, I get odd looking results. Now is there a way or settings I need to be aware of when change the size of the fumeFX box to better max the original cloud which is represented at 100%?

The image helps make more sense. I want the scaled cloud to look exactly like the cloud at 100%, but just scaled larger in the scene. I'm not understanding clearly why it changes so much in appearance?

You can just use the $.systemscale in the listener with the grid selected - make it 10 if you've scaled 1000%, and everything should match.

ibl3d
10-30-2012, 02:59 AM
You could try a few things...
Play a little with your opacity curves/ high+low threshold so the densitys dont end so harshly.
Try playing with the jitter amount... more will diffuse the lines but might look funny if you push it too far.
Try turning you shadow bias on your lights up a little.

Otherwise you may have to look at simming a higher res grid or using WT to get the grid higher res.
Thanks Floopyb

solved with opacity curves

JohnnyRandom
10-30-2012, 05:54 AM
Just in case any of you guys are sick-n-tired of drag sizing your FumeFX preview window:

https://vimeo.com/52443231

fireknght2
10-30-2012, 07:23 PM
Just in case any of you guys are sick-n-tired of drag sizing your FumeFX preview window:

https://vimeo.com/52443231

Awesome script Johnny...taking all the work out of it thankfully, making it fun...:)

Rich

Phlok
11-02-2012, 12:58 PM
As I do not need any buoyancy advecting my fluid upward (pos world Z) but into pos world X direction, I rotated my FumeFX container by 90 deg. around X.

When watching my simulations, it feels like the fluid is rising upward in world space, just as if it was using world space for calculating the direction of buoyancy instead of the container's object space.

Is here anybody who can confirm that or give me a hint on how I can change the direction of buoyancy inside the container?

3ak
11-02-2012, 02:03 PM
As I do not need any buoyancy advecting my fluid upward (pos world Z) but into pos world X direction, I rotated my FumeFX container by 90 deg. around X.

When watching my simulations, it feels like the fluid is rising upward in world space, just as if it was using world space for calculating the direction of buoyancy instead of the container's object space.

Is here anybody who can confirm that or give me a hint on how I can change the direction of buoyancy inside the container?

Use fumefx gravity vector helper. Buoyancy direction is -1* gravity_vector.

VladimirStefanovic
11-06-2012, 12:40 PM
When emitting from a object source that is a animated Xmesh sequnace I get this same smoke line artifacts shooting out of the object always at the same frames, other then that simulation is fine...It's a thinking particles simulation by the way, geometry was saved with xmesh.

http://oi50.tinypic.com/sbsbro.jpg

http://oi48.tinypic.com/2zziywx.jpg

Does anyone know a solution or has ran into this problem before when emitting from Xmesh?