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

JohnnyRandom
11-06-2012, 03:35 PM
I have seen this with xmesh. Do you have any modifiers on top of the xmesh loader?

VladimirStefanovic
11-06-2012, 03:45 PM
I have seen this with xmesh. Do you have any modifiers on top of the xmesh loader?

None, seems like Xmesh has some weird issue with fumefx compability, I searched a lot and never found an explanation or something

JohnnyRandom
11-06-2012, 06:46 PM
Hmm, it is possible there are some strange vector lengths coming from somewhere, that seemed to be what happened to me, I had added a relax and I had approx 5 faces blow off some extreme velocities. Can you recache the mesh to see if it was just a bad frame?

You may be able to effectively control this with an effector if you are using Fume 3.+ by testing the per voxel velocity and replacing it with a more normalized value. So test velocity from min-max and replace or multiply with a less value. Not perfect solution but it may get you past that bunk frame.

Ash007
11-07-2012, 12:07 PM
Hi, at the moment I do a little RnD for a dragon flame. Everything works fine so far, except the point when the RayFire simulation starts to break apart the handcart.

Here is a little test video (~1 MB): VIDEO (http://dl.dropbox.com/u/20751640/test03.mp4) The last couple of frames are the important ones.
Here is a viewport preview of the whole scene (~2MB): VIDEO (http://dl.dropbox.com/u/20751640/_scene.mp4)

When all the little bits and pieces start flying around, the FumeFX simulation starts to fill out the whole simulation container and that's look weird.
Is there any chance to simulate the fire without spreading so much?

thx

VladimirStefanovic
11-07-2012, 07:24 PM
Hmm, it is possible there are some strange vector lengths coming from somewhere, that seemed to be what happened to me, I had added a relax and I had approx 5 faces blow off some extreme velocities. Can you recache the mesh to see if it was just a bad frame?

You may be able to effectively control this with an effector if you are using Fume 3.+ by testing the per voxel velocity and replacing it with a more normalized value. So test velocity from min-max and replace or multiply with a less value. Not perfect solution but it may get you past that bunk frame.

I found the solution to my problem: I was Xmeshing the whole thinking particles instead of just the groups, now that i saved just the two groups of TP it works fine with no artifacts :)
Thanks for helping :thumbsup:

turas29
11-07-2012, 09:00 PM
Hi, I was trying to do some clouds, what do you think?
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/713/rendclouds.jpg/
https://vimeo.com/51777803

AMParticles
11-10-2012, 04:08 AM
Hi guys,


I'm wondering if there is a way to render out cross-sections of a Fume sim. I would like to render the internal volume, not just a outline of the cross-section. The goal is to do very large renders for print of the various cross-sections.

I have tried clipping planes on a camera setting the near and far this does not work for fume. Also I know I can do it with a magma flow delete node and geometry to essentially slice the resulting particle clouds. But I was wondering if there are any other ways you guys might now or can think of...


Thanks !

benio33
11-15-2012, 08:29 AM
@AMParticles: I think you could just place a box over unwanted-to-render section of fume grid and put a matte/shadow shader on it.

edit: Supid idea - doesn't work :( - checked ... sorry.

3ak
11-15-2012, 09:11 AM
Hi guys,


I'm wondering if there is a way to render out cross-sections of a Fume sim. I would like to render the internal volume, not just a outline of the cross-section. The goal is to do very large renders for print of the various cross-sections.

I have tried clipping planes on a camera setting the near and far this does not work for fume. Also I know I can do it with a magma flow delete node and geometry to essentially slice the resulting particle clouds. But I was wondering if there are any other ways you guys might now or can think of...


Thanks !

Fumefx is not flexible enough so you have to do some extra work:
1) Sim your main grid.
2) Create it's clone (don't forget to change cache files!)
3) Add fumfx source and 2 void sources to the clone (change their type to box and place them so you leave only slice of your 2nd grid).
4) You can use effectors instead of void sources if you need something more specific then just delete voxels.

JohnnyRandom
11-15-2012, 06:15 PM
Fumefx is not flexible enough so you have to do some extra work:
1) Sim your main grid.
2) Create it's clone (don't forget to change cache files!)
3) Add fumfx source and 2 void sources to the clone (change their type to box and place them so you leave only slice of your 2nd grid).
4) You can use effectors instead of void sources if you need something more specific then just delete voxels.

Nice someone actually using an FFX source ;)


You can also use Krakatoa you won't have to run another sim. Pretty easiy setup, same basic premise as 3ak described.

max3d2008
11-15-2012, 06:34 PM
Hello guys. Does Anyone know what is the temperature value set by default in the fumefx grid without emitters?

JohnnyRandom
11-15-2012, 06:39 PM
It is 0.0, there is no ambient temperature (yet)

3ak
11-15-2012, 06:52 PM
Nice someone actually using an FFX source ;)


You can also use Krakatoa you won't have to run another sim. Pretty easiy setup, same basic premise as 3ak described.

Btw, didn't you try some approximation for multiple scattering in krakatoa? I didn't mention (thanks) cause 90% uses MS and i just don't know (yet)) how to approach it in magma mod (or at least something plausible)

JohnnyRandom
11-15-2012, 07:01 PM
Btw, didn't you try some approximation for multiple scattering in krakatoa? I didn't mention (thanks) cause 90% uses MS and i just don't know (yet)) how to approach it in magma mod (or at least something plausible)

You have all the necessary channel data, it is just a matter of applying it the same way the Multiple Scatter function does. I have tried with limited success, someone else I am sure could hammer right through it, me takes me a while to wrap my head around it. Man that was a long time ago.

max3d2008
11-15-2012, 07:08 PM
It is 0.0, there is no ambient temperature (yet)
Thank you.

Daniel-B
11-15-2012, 08:41 PM
Is it just me or has it been anyone else's experience that the Temp Buoyancy default in FumeFx is way too high? When I make a flame with default settings it's way too stringy vertically. If I put the Temp Buoy around 0.2-0.25 and the vorticity between 0.6 and 0.75, my flames look instantly better.

JohnnyRandom
11-15-2012, 09:50 PM
Yeah you are probably right, I know there are a few settings that are similar. I personally think that the timescale default of 1.0 is too slow, or the ambient smoke color being dark grey instead of black, or any one of a dozen others :)

In fact I always create "my" default test grid with a script that sets my general params. Which is something that I think is another of Fumes greatest strengths, the depth of its MXS is pretty deep. There are but a few functions/params that aren't accessible.

3ak
11-21-2012, 06:54 PM
Hey guys, how would you approach a subject of emitting smoke from a sphere like simple source one, but with falloff near the edge of it. What I mean is it emits much more inside the sphere and at the egde almost none. What I already tried:

1. Emitting with particles - gives great control, but gives to "dotty" look - very hard to smoothen out.
2. Emitting from simple source with noise map - too hard to get "sphere" inside using noise parameters, and the shape is not sphere enough.
3. Emitting inside a fume container from a simple source with high diffusion then use it as a fume source in another container - works best but I can only "read" values from fume source, and no "add" possibility. That way when I use few containers they "eat-out" their results :((

Thanks in advance.

I'd use effector - create spherical one with the same size as source, align it, and set it to multiply channels with constant (==1) and enable radial falloff.
Example:
|https://dl.dropbox.com/u/46208032/3ak_source_with_radial_falloff.max

benio33
11-21-2012, 07:48 PM
I'd use effector - create spherical one with the same size as source, align it, and set it to multiply channels with constant (==1) and enable radial falloff.
Example:
|https://dl.dropbox.com/u/46208032/3ak_source_with_radial_falloff.max

Thank you 3ak I really appreciate that! It is what I'm looking for, but the thing is, it works only for one emitter. When 2 are mixed they eat-out each other, and I need it to work when 2 emitters intersect. But the idea is really good, and maybe I can figure something out using effectors.

3ak
11-21-2012, 08:51 PM
Thank you 3ak I really appreciate that! It is what I'm looking for, but the thing is, it works only for one emitter. When 2 are mixed they eat-out each other, and I need it to work when 2 emitters intersect. But the idea is really good, and maybe I can figure something out using effectors.

I don't think you can use effectors for more than 1 source in this example. they are too restrictive.
Use particles - create object with shape you need for emitter, emit particles inside, calculate distance to nearest point on surface of the object (fake SDF), normalize it and use as multiplier in FumeFX. I use tp so i can use custom particles channel.
You need quite big amount of particles, decent radius and low smoke value - this way you can "blur" channel and avoid popping while your multiplier gives you desired density from inside to outside of the shape.

benio33
11-22-2012, 08:22 AM
I don't think you can use effectors for more than 1 source in this example. they are too restrictive.
Use particles - create object with shape you need for emitter, emit particles inside, calculate distance to nearest point on surface of the object (fake SDF), normalize it and use as multiplier in FumeFX. I use tp so i can use custom particles channel.
You need quite big amount of particles, decent radius and low smoke value - this way you can "blur" channel and avoid popping while your multiplier gives you desired density from inside to outside of the shape.

Yeah, you're right in both cases - using effectiors didnt work for me, and using particles did. What I did is have a spheres filled with particles, calculate the distance from the middle, the largest are on the edges for most blur and smaller are inside, the interior ones emit the most based on a track curve. Funny is I started with particles, but didn't think of fading their emission near the edge - works like charm. Thank you 3ak! You saved my day.

Debneyink
11-30-2012, 12:50 PM
So fumefx is great obviously but I'm looking at Phoenix Fd also as an option...

I'm working on a nuke and this is what I've got so far without too much time, there's frames missing in the sim which I'm working on but you get the idea.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4D_uEVI11SA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swHP8WCJj8E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bz5Th1fy8qg&feature=youtu.be

what i like most about these and Phoenix is its ability to work with Vray, both these shots are using one light with a hdri map!

Does anyone know if you can use hdri with fumfx?

oh and I'm going to continue my phoenix tests on the Aura sticky thread...

cheers

finalight
12-05-2012, 08:03 AM
Hi everyone,

Wondering if anyone knows if this has been resolved or possibly a workaround. I'm getting the same error as below using fumefx3.x. What I've found is that if writing to a local drive, it doesn't give the error. Have tested on multiple 64bit machines with 16GB ram each. As soon as the sim pushes to 4GB ram usage (total usage - max and win), it throws the error. Haven't seen this prior to v3.x

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 ?

.......Saving fxd data FAILED (low RAM).
Frame time: 00:48.60
Simulation terminated. ....

Daniel-B
12-05-2012, 02:41 PM
Brian, I don't have a solution to your problem, but I just wanted to say that the Fume explosions on your site are the best I've ever seen. Really excellent. Did you use particle or object emission?

Any info on how you made them would be appreciated.

finalight
12-06-2012, 02:33 AM
Heya Daniel,

Thanks very much - your RnD on Vimeo is really cool - nice work, good progression - eh, all those blasts look cool actually. It's obvious you have patience to get some good ffx movement/behavior, mess with shader tweaks, and pull away from default settings.

For the stock blasts, some use object sources, and others, particle. Some tips would be the following (though a lot of these are probably commonly known):

--I rarely use TimeScale 1 nor real world scale to drive parameters chosen.
--I usually have to dial explosions at full res since they come out very different from higher spacing (low fi) tests. It's tedious, but pays off. To save time, I use the 'slice' method to test the cross section of movement first, then expand out to the box depth I need.
--I don't use a lot of noise - just enough to similate ambient air currents that help break stuff up as in real life. I try to use either heat or velocity to get curling motion.
--Low burn rates of course
--Low vorticity
--Contrary to suggestions, sometimes raising the Quality to 6 or 7 has yielded mushrooming I was after, whereas 5 would not. Just depends.
--Note taking regarding RnD (i.e. v030 - changed vorticity from AA to BB; changed burn rate from CC to DD). Sim, review, fall back to previous version? push on?
--Patience. I ended up RnD'ing fire/smoke/explosions for 2 years before getting what I was after. Most of that was sim time. Morning routine - check sim, tweak for 3 min, jet to studio. It helped enable dialing of what works.
--For Multi-scattering within super large scale blasts, MS settings should be very low - falloff versus fire strength takes some dialing. Best method is to pick a frame, save shadow to disk, then render/tweak/repeat until the right amount of falloff versus fire strength is obtained. Fire shader also affects it, so it's a parametric tweak session.
--Sleep sometimes.

Cool looking fire shader notes on your Vimeo. Fire is definately a strange beast, kind of occludes - kind of doesn't. After messing with a bunch of fire stock all year, shader tweaks definately can go a long way.

Cheers,

garryclarke
12-06-2012, 08:57 AM
Hi,

Is it possible to suck smoke out of an enclosed space?

I have a room where a noxious liquid on the floor is giving off a nasty vapour - this bit shouldn't be too hard.
Then a hatch opens in the ceiling and the vapour starts to head toward the hatch (acting a bit like a chimney.

How would I go about setting this up?

3ak
12-06-2012, 01:31 PM
Hi,

Is it possible to suck smoke out of an enclosed space?

I have a room where a noxious liquid on the floor is giving off a nasty vapour - this bit shouldn't be too hard.
Then a hatch opens in the ceiling and the vapour starts to head toward the hatch (acting a bit like a chimney.

How would I go about setting this up?
Try to use spherical wind with negative strength to suck in smoke through hatch and void source to kill smoke behind it. It will work but don't forget that wind knows nothing about walls so it will create velocity field that points right through wall . so you may add another wind poining to hole in wall or even more complex - stream of particles, used as velocity field (with big radius and small vel multiplier to make it subtle force).

JohnnyRandom
12-06-2012, 04:20 PM
Or use a Gravity Vector and set it to point, since 3.x gravity param now accepts negative values.

You could also play with an effector too, test smoke density values to give greater effect for more dense smoke. Or half a dozen other things to add some uniqueness to it :)

garryclarke
12-06-2012, 05:30 PM
Thanks for the tips, I'll give those a go.

- Garry

Daniel-B
12-06-2012, 07:57 PM
Is it possible to suck smoke out of an enclosed space?


Here is what you do. Put a simple source over your hatch that emits temperature/heat only (upward), and nothing else. The cold air in the Fume container will rush in to fill the void left by the low pressure created by the hot air, and pull the smoke along with it.

I had to do this to suck smoke through letters, and it worked beautifully.

Heya Daniel,

Thanks very much - your RnD on Vimeo is really cool - nice work, good progression - eh, all those blasts look cool actually. It's obvious you have patience to get some good ffx movement/behavior, mess with shader tweaks, and pull away from default settings.

Cool looking fire shader notes on your Vimeo.

Interesting. Your notes are similar to my methods. One of the differences that stood out to me is that I can never get an explosion to look good with low vorticity. How low are you talking? My explosions are usually between 0.6 and 0.75 vorticity. Anything lower just ends up looking like a "bubbly" smoke. I also usually have my Advection Stride between 0.125-0.3. This helps keep some of the curling motion.

Do you emit fuel at all before you ignite it, or do you simply emit fuel and temperature at the same time? I'd love to compare notes via email sometime if you are up for it.

Also, I always work at real world scale.

turingm1
12-08-2012, 10:47 PM
Hi Everyone,

I just finished my 2012 website and special effects demo reel. It's located at http://www.chaddelliott.com

All feedback is welcome

Thanks

Daniel-B
12-13-2012, 07:55 PM
Hey guys. I was wondering if those of you who make Fume explosions could give me some detailed pointers. I am really liking the way my explosion sims are looking, except for emission. All of my explosions are a blobby fire when they first ignite. This is my latest attempt...

https://vimeo.com/47798297

However, I would love to get the first few frames to look something more like this...

https://vimeo.com/47717040

Any thoughts?

benio33
12-17-2012, 01:26 PM
Guys, how do you change for example "Smoke Opacity" in rendering tab with maxscript? I can change most of the other params listed in "show $fumeGrid" e.g. gridSpacing, gravity etc., but there is none changing Fire, Smoke and Fuel params in the render tab :( ... or is there?

3ak
12-17-2012, 01:58 PM
Guys, how do you change for example "Smoke Opacity" in rendering tab with maxscript? I can change most of the other params listed in "show $fumeGrid" e.g. gridSpacing, gravity etc., but there is none changing Fire, Smoke and Fuel params in the render tab :( ... or is there?

s = $.getshader()
show s

benio33
12-17-2012, 03:47 PM
s = $.getshader()
show s

Of course, these are shading parameters! Damn, you're good!! Thanks 3ak!!

finalight
12-23-2012, 12:53 AM
Do you emit fuel at all before you ignite it, or do you simply emit fuel and temperature at the same time? I'd love to compare notes via email sometime if you are up for it.



Heya,

Sometimes I do. It depends on what the client is after. Sure - I'm up for emailing. Free free to shoot me a msg thru briandemetz.com

Cheers,

Solbester
01-04-2013, 07:57 PM
I created a tornado using pflow particles, and then tried to use them to create a fume fx tornado. Unfortunately once it hits 200 frames the tornado explodes outward even though the pflow particles don’t. How can i fix that? I want the fume particles to follow the pflow particles perfectly. thank you in advance.

Menesis
01-07-2013, 09:04 AM
Is FumeFX something that is really used in blockbusters? I can't find any references really (except a little list on their own website).

JonathanFreisler
01-07-2013, 09:27 AM
What's the point of a question like that? Yes? It completely depends on the studio.

bhavya2
01-07-2013, 02:40 PM
What's the point of a question like that? Yes? It completely depends on the studio.
Very true sir...

adom86
01-07-2013, 02:59 PM
currently the best question of 2013.. wonder if it will hold on :D

JohnnyRandom
01-08-2013, 02:17 AM
Is FumeFX something that is really used in blockbusters? I can't find any references really (except a little list on their own website).

It is used in more places than you might think ;)

Glacierise
01-08-2013, 05:49 AM
It is used in more places than you might think ;)


Ooh yes indeed :)

fireknght2
01-08-2013, 01:45 PM
Most of today's movies use FumeFX and other Fire/Explosion/Smoke CG tools. The Avengers Movie used a very large amount of FumeFX shots. Its a safer method and doesn't require all the permits that old school pyrotechnics require.

Rich

Daniel-B
01-08-2013, 09:10 PM
Most of today's movies use FumeFX and other Fire/Explosion/Smoke CG tools. The Avengers Movie used a very large amount of FumeFX shots. Its a safer method and doesn't require all the permits that old school pyrotechnics require.

Rich

You sure about Fume? I know ILM has their own inhouse tool called Plume for such things. They could have used Fume, I just would think ILM would use their own tool. :shrug:

SoLiTuDe
01-08-2013, 09:12 PM
You sure about Fume? I know ILM has their own inhouse tool called Plume for such things. They could have used Fume, I just would think ILM would use their own tool. :shrug:

ILM isn't the only company that worked on Avengers. Hydraulx also did a few shots, and they have been using TP and Fume for a while now.

fireknght2
01-09-2013, 08:08 PM
ILM does not do all the FX for Marvel/Disney. There are many companies even small time single employee companies that work on the projects as well. Grant it most work under ILM, but they use there own favorite software...FumeFX is a biggie for most. Since ILM won't share their software for use the smaller companies have to turn to alternate software.

Aboubakr
01-18-2013, 08:08 PM
hi every one!

i have some R&D to share with u, and i need any idea or suggestion :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfsIX69rtgg

thanks in advance

new update of the helicopter

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZ4BRs37dog

and this is the reference that i'm following

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwr8a-5MruE

draxysd
01-22-2013, 11:09 PM
Hi everyone. First post in this topic, yay :D

Anyhow, I wanted to access objects that are in ffx simulation, so I used the $Fumefx001.getObject index
This is all fine and dandy, but I need to find out the name of the object I am acessing, and it seems there isn't a way to do it. All I can get when i use show on the object is 3 parameters (use, speedmultpilier and objecttype), but nothing else. I can see that the object type is ReferenceTarget, can anyone explain in short whate ReferenceTargets are, and how you use them. I have run into them quite a lot lately, and can't seem to get a grasp on them. They seem to have a lot of hidden functions and properties (or so it seems to me). Is there a way to find out all the properties and methods without documentation (maxscript listener alone).

Thanks in advance,
Dragan Najdenov

kogden
01-22-2013, 11:19 PM
Hi everyone. First post in this topic, yay :D

Anyhow, I wanted to access objects that are in ffx simulation, so I used the $Fumefx001.getObject index
This is all fine and dandy, but I need to find out the name of the object I am acessing, and it seems there isn't a way to do it. All I can get when i use show on the object is 3 parameters (use, speedmultpilier and objecttype), but nothing else. I can see that the object type is ReferenceTarget, can anyone explain in short whate ReferenceTargets are, and how you use them. I have run into them quite a lot lately, and can't seem to get a grasp on them. They seem to have a lot of hidden functions and properties (or so it seems to me). Is there a way to find out all the properties and methods without documentation (maxscript listener alone).

Thanks in advance,
Dragan Najdenov

Its been a while since I threw somemaxscript at FumeFX....i have a feeling you have to work backwards from the object back to fumefx to find what you are looking for... recursive function of somesort.... its been a good while though since ive done any maxscript/ fumefx work so im not sure what might have changed with updates from Kresmir...

But i think if you dig around fume/sources etc useing this code, it might help you a little :)....

showproperties <node>

ie showproperties $fumefx01

and

getpropnames <node>

ie getpropnames $fumefx01



hope that helps a little.

Cheers Kieran

3ak
01-23-2013, 06:22 AM
Hi everyone. First post in this topic, yay :D

Anyhow, I wanted to access objects that are in ffx simulation, so I used the $Fumefx001.getObject index
This is all fine and dandy, but I need to find out the name of the object I am acessing, and it seems there isn't a way to do it. All I can get when i use show on the object is 3 parameters (use, speedmultpilier and objecttype), but nothing else. I can see that the object type is ReferenceTarget, can anyone explain in short whate ReferenceTargets are, and how you use them. I have run into them quite a lot lately, and can't seem to get a grasp on them. They seem to have a lot of hidden functions and properties (or so it seems to me). Is there a way to find out all the properties and methods without documentation (maxscript listener alone).

Thanks in advance,
Dragan Najdenov

This should help (select ffx grid first):
for i = 0 to ($.numobjects() -1) do print ((refs.dependson ($.getobject i))[3].name)

draxysd
01-23-2013, 06:51 AM
Right, forgot about the dependents. Thanks a million.

Dragan Najdenov

jigu
01-25-2013, 05:25 AM
Hello Everyone,

I am doing simulation on new SSD and it got full. So next day I deleted some last 100 frames of sim data. Now when I try to resume simulation in fumefx, it starts out from 200 frame instead of 120th frame. Is there a way to tell fumefx to read last frame 120 and start continuing sim from there?

Thanks,
Regards,
Jigu

Mills
01-31-2013, 07:39 PM
What is the workflow for running many simulation of the same fumefx grid to see changes in settings. Something like "FFX MultiRun" I cant find a link for the script.

I would like to run a number of simulation in one max file, similar to these movies:

https://vimeo.com/20700366

https://vimeo.com/20701396

Cheers!

JohnnyRandom
01-31-2013, 09:10 PM
Hmm, I think I know what your talking about, LOL Fabian Buckreus, Jeff Lim, and I have each written one, in fact I can't remeber for sure but I think someone else has written one as well.

Fabians (FumeFX - R&D Maxscript Beta) alter values to a single grid
http://www.afterworks.com/BBoard2012/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=1239

Mine (ComparaSim in the first post) builds an array of grids with different increment values
http://www.afterworks.com/BBoard2012/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=1125
I have not updated the param list for FFX 3.0+, if you want to use this one let me know I will dig in some time to update it. It should not take too long.


Can't find Jeff's :(

Nickel0531
02-02-2013, 10:06 PM
hi everyone ,

i have question about zdepth,
as we know Fume has its own camera zdepth ,
I was wondering what if we need world position zdepth .
In maya fluid , there's a way like projection mapping (lassign gradient ramp),
does Fume (or 3ds max) have similar way to reach my need ?

BR

Niko.

Glacierise
02-02-2013, 10:33 PM
You can do lots of custom shading stuff if you render with Krakatoa.

Nickel0531
02-03-2013, 12:09 AM
You can do lots of custom shading stuff if you render with Krakatoa.

thanks for reply,

Im not really familiar with krakatoa ,
so does that mean ,
we cant do it on Fume but krakatoa ?

Glacierise
02-03-2013, 06:22 AM
You can create particles from the voxels of FumeFX and use Krakatoa's magmaflow to assign colors and other channels to them in a smart way, so you can get more shading options than with FFX alone.

Nickel0531
02-04-2013, 01:54 AM
You can create particles from the voxels of FumeFX and use Krakatoa's magmaflow to assign colors and other channels to them in a smart way, so you can get more shading options than with FFX alone.

thanks a lot !
that sounds great !
really appreciate that. :)

Mills
02-04-2013, 02:07 PM
Hmm, I think I know what your talking about, LOL Fabian Buckreus, Jeff Lim, and I have each written one, in fact I can't remeber for sure but I think someone else has written one as well.

Fabians (FumeFX - R&D Maxscript Beta) alter values to a single grid
http://www.afterworks.com/BBoard2012/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=1239

Mine (ComparaSim in the first post) builds an array of grids with different increment values
http://www.afterworks.com/BBoard2012/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=1125
I have not updated the param list for FFX 3.0+, if you want to use this one let me know I will dig in some time to update it. It should not take too long.


Can't find Jeff's :(

Thanks for these links! I realized that if i send it to back burner with network simulation "on" on all the grids, it does what I want it to. Dont know why I never tried it before.
E

Daniel-B
02-05-2013, 08:30 PM
Man, must be nothing interesting happening in the Fume world. This thread has been pretty scarce of comments lately.

jdrouse
02-06-2013, 01:48 AM
Did Luma and Sitni Sati release FFX for Maya? Maybe everyone migrated over there and we're just sitting here.

Maybe the 3dsMax gang is paying them not to release it to keep a few Max licenses in the pipelines of Maya studios.

In other news, if somebody wants to donate a sim of fluffy red smoke for an emergency pickup I'll be needing that finished ASAP and I haven't gotten to it yet! heh heh heh.

http://media.naplesnews.com/media/img/photos/2009/10/11/091007NS-GK-lesslethal293_t607.jpg

Nickel0531
02-06-2013, 02:19 AM
hi again!

I have question about initial state ,
when im done default simulation with initial state ;
the wavelet sim doesnt seem to right ,
does wavelet sim not allow to use when default cache start from initial state?
or am i missing something ? :sad:

Glacierise
02-06-2013, 02:59 AM
@Rouse - I'd swear if you render this out and show to sups, they'll say it needs to be more cauliflower and less low-res CG smoke :D

JohnnyRandom
02-07-2013, 03:20 AM
hi again!

I have question about initial state ,
when im done default simulation with initial state ;
the wavelet sim doesnt seem to right ,
does wavelet sim not allow to use when default cache start from initial state?
or am i missing something ? :sad:

No you are not doing anything wrong, it has never worked. I reported this back the end of March last year, it got pushed down the list, I just bumped it maybe we will get a response sometime soon on what is possible/not possible. :)

JohnnyRandom
02-07-2013, 03:22 AM
@Rouse - I'd swear if you render this out and show to sups, they'll say it needs to be more cauliflower and less low-res CG smoke :D

LOL funny how everyone thinks ALL smoke is digi now :D I augmented some practicals with some ancillary smoke a little while back, I read some comments on it after it was aired and was funny to read Joe Blow bagging on the all CG smoke and fire. :wip:

Nickel0531
02-07-2013, 02:12 PM
No you are not doing anything wrong, it has never worked. I reported this back the end of March last year, it got pushed down the list, I just bumped it maybe we will get a response sometime soon on what is possible/not possible. :)

thank you johnny ;)
hope it could possibly on this part soon.

galagast
02-13-2013, 10:28 AM
Hmm, I think I know what your talking about, LOL Fabian Buckreus, Jeff Lim, and I have each written one, in fact I can't remeber for sure but I think someone else has written one as well.

Fabians (FumeFX - R&D Maxscript Beta) alter values to a single grid
http://www.afterworks.com/BBoard2012/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=1239

Mine (ComparaSim in the first post) builds an array of grids with different increment values
http://www.afterworks.com/BBoard2012/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=1125
I have not updated the param list for FFX 3.0+, if you want to use this one let me know I will dig in some time to update it. It should not take too long.


Can't find Jeff's :(

Sorry Johnny, I might have to dig my old script up and slap in a UI while I'm at it >__<

JohnnyRandom
02-13-2013, 07:16 PM
Go for it! I'll mess around with it for sure :)

Daniel-B
02-14-2013, 02:27 PM
Hey guys. Looks like video copilot might be releasing some FumeFX training, or at least a Fume FX comping tutorial.

http://www.videocopilot.net/blog/2013/02/explosive-training/

I'm not sure if he will go over creating the elements, because those elements look pretty similar to the ones found at...

http://www.finalight.com/-/maindir/webpages/order/_EVT1_HD.php

But I can't be sure. Anyway, looks like a fun tut either way.

AdrienSliver
02-14-2013, 02:34 PM
Thanks Daniel !

AnoPrkl
02-14-2013, 08:27 PM
I'm trying to achieve something like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIYns2tWnzY&t=6m5s). Not red color but the look of the smoke. Haven't really been able to get it look like that. Any tips what should i do to achieve that? How much particles, do i need really low spacing to get that much detail or is wavelet enough?

Thanks.

finalight
02-14-2013, 10:17 PM
Hey guys. Looks like video copilot might be releasing some FumeFX training, or at least a Fume FX comping tutorial.

http://www.videocopilot.net/blog/2013/02/explosive-training/

I'm not sure if he will go over creating the elements, because those elements look pretty similar to the ones found at...

http://www.finalight.com/-/maindir/webpages/order/_EVT1_HD.php

But I can't be sure. Anyway, looks like a fun tut either way.
Howdy Daniel,

Interesting - We shall see! Yep, looks like a cool tutorial.

cojoMan
02-21-2013, 12:44 PM
I stumbled onto this the other day : https://vimeo.com/22346903
And I get that it was made in Houdini
How would you go about doing something like this in max with fume ?

I have 2 starting points :
1.custom shaped fumefx containers, that after the sim is cached would be linked to a RBD simulation using geometry. But to my knowledge, no such thing as custom shaped containers exist.
2.Simmulate fume. Put a box over the whole sim. Chop it with rayfire, volumebreaker, etc. Sim the pieces. PFlow/TP particles that folow the fume sim, but linked to the RBD as long as it is in the chunk that is flying. This I think it could be pulled off. But how do you render it back USING Fume, not krakatoa, afterwards... ?
3. please sugest if you have any clue...

thanks

JohnnyRandom
02-21-2013, 01:41 PM
Right off the bat I would say just prt cache the final sim frame then mesh it with frost, then fracture it. As for the shader well, maybe projection map and bake it. The shader I think would be the most difficult part.

prieMAX
02-22-2013, 08:20 AM
hi there...
last few days ago..my office ugraded our fumefx to ver.3.5.1 ...but i got problem..it seems my sim stop at certain frame..without error msg or crash. let say my sim range 0-250 frames. at frame 240..always stop..its like fumefx finished the sim. i checked that my sim range at general tab was correct, at range (0-250). same with time config anim bar 3dsmax. and RAM ok too.
and same thing happen when i sim using wavelet mode...its stop before finished all frames.
our previous ver.3.0.2...and i didnt have this problem (note: i use same scene max).
anyone had same problem like me with ver.3.5.1?
thanks.

JohnnyRandom
02-22-2013, 03:21 PM
Does this happen with different scenes?

Does this happen with a default setup extended to 250 frames?

Does this happen with any newly created scenes?

Does this happen when you import the old Fume setup into a new scene?

Have you tried saving out the container as a preset, creating a new one, and apply the preset values to it?

I could be wrong of course, I suspect that it is just a fluke. Let me know if it still occurs after any of the above steps.

Nickel0531
02-26-2013, 10:02 AM
hi all!

ive been met wierd situation,
when I let my container constrained to the dummy which has animation,
the simulate result will have horrible blocky noise.

Ive notice that opacity and density would cause that kind of problem ,
but no matter how i raise my opacity or dencity , it still has blocky noise.

another problem that i met before , i render my FFX image in perspective and cam ,
the cam one does have same blocky noise but perspective doesnt see any of these problem.

this is making me crazy, any suggestion ? :sad:

JohnnyRandom
02-27-2013, 08:03 PM
Voxels are square. When a voxels density is very high, it will look much like a cube, while looking at it from at different angles will changes how it looks.

When blockiness is an issue you can try:
1. Lower the voxel density, either by emitting less fluid, use an effector to replace density if its too high, raise the dissipation min. density and strength (if constantly producing a lot of smoke).
2. Lower the render opacity(s), tweak the afc curve(s).
3. raise the render jitter amount to >=50 lower the step to <=15
4. simulate with more voxels, ie lower the spacing value.

Daniel-B
02-28-2013, 01:23 PM
I think you guys will want to see this. :)

http://www.videocopilot.net/blog/2013/02/tutorial-series-explosive-training/

AdrienSliver
02-28-2013, 02:35 PM
it's really cool

JohnnyRandom
02-28-2013, 02:40 PM
Who's he kidding "bring it up to 80's ILM quality"? :wip: :D

Nickel0531
03-01-2013, 11:40 AM
Voxels are square. When a voxels density is very high, it will look much like a cube, while looking at it from at different angles will changes how it looks.

When blockiness is an issue you can try:
1. Lower the voxel density, either by emitting less fluid, use an effector to replace density if its too high, raise the dissipation min. density and strength (if constantly producing a lot of smoke).
2. Lower the render opacity(s), tweak the afc curve(s).
3. raise the render jitter amount to >=50 lower the step to <=15
4. simulate with more voxels, ie lower the spacing value.

thank you johnny for those helpful advise
ill try those steps to Re-simulate my smoke:)

btw , does systemScale affect block noise too ?
cuz i tried adjust systemScale , and the result was different , even the blockiness still showed up tho , but somehow it became weaker , so i am wondering if it affects too

finalight
03-01-2013, 07:57 PM
hi there...
last few days ago..my office ugraded our fumefx to ver.3.5.1 ...but i got problem..it seems my sim stop at certain frame..without error msg or crash. let say my sim range 0-250 frames. at frame 240..always stop..its like fumefx finished the sim. i checked that my sim range at general tab was correct, at range (0-250). same with time config anim bar 3dsmax. and RAM ok too.
and same thing happen when i sim using wavelet mode...its stop before finished all frames.
our previous ver.3.0.2...and i didnt have this problem (note: i use same scene max).
anyone had same problem like me with ver.3.5.1?
thanks.

I've had this problem in 3.5.x when simming to a network drive. Is that your situation, or are you simming to a local drive? To check for it, select the box to keep the simming progress window open after simming completes and it will throw a memory error on the frame it stops at.

JohnnyRandom
03-01-2013, 10:58 PM
cuz i tried adjust systemScale , and the result was different ,

.systemScale is simply a global multiplier. It will increase or decrease all parameters equally by the given value.

maganiac
03-02-2013, 10:51 AM
Hi people!

Im trying to do a windtunnel with an f1 but im having troubles to do the smoke. Im using fumefx but i donīt manage to have a dense narrow and long smoke column, i just manage to have smoke with mushroom, what should i do??

Just an example of what i whant to achieve,

http://www.listofcarbrands.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/pagani-zonda-s-windtunnel.jpg

seems easy thing to do but im running out of ideas to try...

Nickel0531
03-04-2013, 03:07 AM
.systemScale is simply a global multiplier. It will increase or decrease all parameters equally by the given value.

i see, i was misunderstanding abt this .
thanks for reply Johnny ;)

JohnnyRandom
03-04-2013, 03:33 AM
Hi people!

Im trying to do a windtunnel with an f1 but im having troubles to do the smoke. Im using fumefx but i donīt manage to have a dense narrow and long smoke column, i just manage to have smoke with mushroom, what should i do??

Just an example of what i whant to achieve,

http://www.listofcarbrands.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/pagani-zonda-s-windtunnel.jpg

seems easy thing to do but im running out of ideas to try...

Well look at it this way, how does a wind tunnel actually work? Thought about using a wind spacewarp? Or are you manipulating gravity in the the direction you want? Maybe even think a little different, how about just orienting your scene along the z-axis so you car is vertical then just turn your camera. Smoke rises right? :)

no problem Nickel0531, it is useful don't discard using it.

finalight
03-04-2013, 06:33 AM
Hi people!

Im trying to do a windtunnel with an f1 but im having troubles to do the smoke. Im using fumefx but i donīt manage to have a dense narrow and long smoke column, i just manage to have smoke with mushroom, what should i do??

Just an example of what i whant to achieve,

http://www.listofcarbrands.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/pagani-zonda-s-windtunnel.jpg

seems easy thing to do but im running out of ideas to try...

Another option, if it's just a one-off and doesn't have to behave dynamically (meaning the emitters will be moved around) would be to sim smoke being pushed in straight lines by wind, lower the vorticity so mushrooming is minimal - wind may stretch them out anyway, and then use an FFD after the sim is complete to deform the streams around the contour of the body shape.

maganiac
03-04-2013, 08:39 PM
Thanks guys!

Booth ideas seems writes, im gonna try first orient the whole scene in z axis so i can see if results are more realist, but finalight idea is great and very simple which sometimes is not easy thing....

What about smoke settings?

I promiss to put some renders on here, Iīm looking forward to see result!! :D

prieMAX
03-05-2013, 04:07 AM
Does this happen with different scenes?

Does this happen with a default setup extended to 250 frames?

Does this happen with any newly created scenes?

Does this happen when you import the old Fume setup into a new scene?

Have you tried saving out the container as a preset, creating a new one, and apply the preset values to it?

I could be wrong of course, I suspect that it is just a fluke. Let me know if it still occurs after any of the above steps.


hi sorry for late reply...
Q1: yup...it happen with diff scene..specialy from other old fume scene.
Q2: havent try
Q3: if the scene fresh new with default setting..yes..its seem ok.
Q4: yup..(i merged old one to new scene)
Q5: yup..same result ..fume stop sim.

but had interesting here.... it seem happen when i start increasing/playing with 'spacing' ..
my old scene actualy i set only around 800MB ram, with old fume ok..no problem. but after update to 3.5.1 ..fume cant finished the sim. its only finished the sim, if i brought down the 'spacing' until around 200-300MB ram.
my office computer with 8 gig ram and the cache at netwotk drive.

thanks John for asking..

prie

prieMAX
03-05-2013, 04:18 AM
I've had this problem in 3.5.x when simming to a network drive. Is that your situation, or are you simming to a local drive? To check for it, select the box to keep the simming progress window open after simming completes and it will throw a memory error on the frame it stops at.

hi..
yup..i put the cache at network drive. havent try to local drive.

here i copy from log:
Frame: 80
Turbulence Effector is active (mm)
Turbulence Scale Effector is active (nn)
Vmax=6.460, dtReq=0.97, steps=1, CFL'=5.15
Resizing: from (450,456,80) to (452,457,81)
Memory used: 1244Mb
ApplyForces done in 3.87 sec
Advect velocities done.
CG done in 4.83 sec with 50 iterations (167.376 MVOPS).
CG res e:-2.380 m:-2.686
Advect fields done.
I/O done in 3.90 sec
Saving cache data OK.
Frame time: 00:23.26

Frame: 81
Turbulence Effector is active (mm)
Turbulence Scale Effector is active (nn)
Vmax=6.195, dtReq=1.01, steps=1, CFL'=4.94
Resizing: from (452,457,81) to (454,460,81)
Memory used: 1258Mb
ApplyForces done in 3.88 sec
Advect velocities done.
CG done in 4.40 sec with 50 iterations (185.802 MVOPS).
CG res e:-2.396 m:-2.726
Advect fields done.
I/O done in 0.81 sec
Saving cache data FAILED (low RAM).
Frame time: 00:20.23
Simulation terminated.
Flushing FFX Particle Src001
Flushing EFXTR
Flushing FFXt2
Flushing RAM

at frame 81 sim stop. it say low ram..abit weird... memory used only 1258MB.. my actual ram 8Gig.
so fail cos network drive?

finalight
03-05-2013, 04:44 AM
hi..
yup..i put the cache at network drive. havent try to local drive.

here i copy from log:
Frame: 80 ...............
..............
I/O done in 0.81 sec
Saving cache data FAILED (low RAM).
Frame time: 00:20.23
Simulation terminated.
..............

at frame 81 sim stop. it say low ram..abit weird... memory used only 1258MB.. my actual ram 8Gig.
so fail cos network drive?
Yep, that's the 'simming to network drive' error I've experienced. Try simming the same scene to a local drive. It's resolved it most every time for me. I've put in an email to Afterworks about it. They replied, however at this point I'm not too sure of the status. It may be on their to-do list. For now, I've been simming to local drives across all farm machines.

prieMAX
03-05-2013, 07:43 AM
Yep, that's the 'simming to network drive' error I've experienced. Try simming the same scene to a local drive. It's resolved it most every time for me. I've put in an email to Afterworks about it. They replied, however at this point I'm not too sure of the status. It may be on their to-do list. For now, I've been simming to local drives across all farm machines.


hi Brian ..
wow..its seem u are right...i just finished test with 2 option.
option 1: i put cache at local drive, same computer with fumefx installed, and its seem fume can finished all the frames.

option 2: i put cache at local drive too, but this time using maping network shared folder (consider network drive), same computer with fumefx installed. (cos normaly i put cache at other computer). and the result fume failed to finished all frames..stop at same frame, at frame 81.

so in my case its seem only work with local drive without maping/network link drive.
now i am trying increasing 'spacing' around 1500MB..(and next step will try wavelet sim), cos like my previous reply at Johny, i got interesting ...in my case fume only can finished all frames if only 'spacing' below 300MB, with network drive.

thks Brian

btw, i cant direct join to afterwork or fumefx forum or send email if i got questions, because when we bought fumefx using our CGsup's email.

prie.

JohnnyRandom
03-05-2013, 08:37 PM
So out of curiosity, you are caching to a network server, what are the specs of that machine? Is it running a single OS or is it running multiple virtual machines?

prieMAX
03-05-2013, 09:59 PM
So out of curiosity, you are caching to a network server, what are the specs of that machine? Is it running a single OS or is it running multiple virtual machines?

hi johnny,
yup..we are using network server, actualy i just used it for network drive..
hmm...i am not sure, i think old HP blade with xeon cpus, and single OS.
anyway like i said before..its ok using network drive before we updated to fumefx 3.5.1, even some scene with low 'spacing' setting (its mean high memory required).

my question is have u try before using network drive for caching with very low 'spacing' setting? or u didnt get this issue even using network drive.? (using fumefx 3.5.1 for sure)

thks

prie.

JohnnyRandom
03-06-2013, 12:08 AM
Hmm I will test some tomorrow. I am guessing to say it is at a deeper level than I can dig. If I can verify and create a repro I will submit a bug report for it.

The only work done in the last cycle in relation to caches had to do with listing them in the Asset Browser, this may or may not have something to do with it.

mcflait
03-06-2013, 09:53 AM
Hi guys, i am trying to do a galaxy, everything is perfect but i have a Little problem, i am trying to do Brown threads, and i can not do it, i am trying to emit smoke from a particle Meshed and rendered from a pflow and fumefxBIRTH and Krakatoa, but my final result is not the same, maybe my workflow is not the best.
Someone can help me?

JohnnyRandom
03-06-2013, 06:56 PM
hi johnny,
yup..we are using network server, actualy i just used it for network drive..
hmm...i am not sure, i think old HP blade with xeon cpus, and single OS.
anyway like i said before..its ok using network drive before we updated to fumefx 3.5.1, even some scene with low 'spacing' setting (its mean high memory required).

my question is have u try before using network drive for caching with very low 'spacing' setting? or u didnt get this issue even using network drive.? (using fumefx 3.5.1 for sure)

thks

prie.

Ok, I am currently writing just under 400mb frame files over a gigabit network with zero issues. I am getting a solid 55% network utilization during the frame write. I am writing to a standard HP nas dl380e 30tb with a single xeon e5 4 core 2.2 and 12 gb ram, so pretty much a low end enterprise nas.

This is a guess but I suspect it is an issue with your frame store, what are the specs of that blade server? How is your network utilization? It takes processor power/mem to send/receive packets, that is usually a limiting factor on one end or the other. I am no network support specialist but I think I would at least verify your network connection to and from is solid.

JohnnyRandom
03-06-2013, 06:57 PM
Hi guys, i am trying to do a galaxy, everything is perfect but i have a Little problem, i am trying to do Brown threads, and i can not do it, i am trying to emit smoke from a particle Meshed and rendered from a pflow and fumefxBIRTH and Krakatoa, but my final result is not the same, maybe my workflow is not the best.
Someone can help me?

Have you tried using a Krakatoa PRT FumeFX object? There really should be no reason to use pflow with something like this.

prieMAX
03-07-2013, 03:43 AM
Ok, I am currently writing just under 400mb frame files over a gigabit network with zero issues. I am getting a solid 55% network utilization during the frame write. I am writing to a standard HP nas dl380e 30tb with a single xeon e5 4 core 2.2 and 12 gb ram, so pretty much a low end enterprise nas.

This is a guess but I suspect it is an issue with your frame store, what are the specs of that blade server? How is your network utilization? It takes processor power/mem to send/receive packets, that is usually a limiting factor on one end or the other. I am no network support specialist but I think I would at least verify your network connection to and from is solid.

hi Johnny,
thanks for did the test. like my previous reply. at my side, fumefx also running well via network drive if 'spacing' around 300mb.
like i said, the problem is with the same networks configuration (including network drive, giga switch and server,.ect.) the previous version (fumefx 3.0.2) didnt have this issue, even i pumped the 'spacing' around 1000mb. now with fumefx 3.5.1 if i start pump 'spacing' above 500mb fumefx failed to finish all frames.
and dont forget i did 2 test like Brian suggestion (using local drive).
(1) i did put cache at local drive, and fumefx ran well..can finished all frames. even i pumped 'spacing' above 500mb (yesterday test around 1200mb).
(2) i did put cache at local drive too, but using shared folder, consider network drive. so basicly its just looping network to my local drive. and fumefx was failed to finish all frames.(with 'spacing' above 500mb).

btw, i will ask to my IT guys about our networks configuration, cos i cant answer ur questions now.., i also not network specialist too... hehe. and i also suspect this issue maybe 'cos network problem too..but like i said with same network configs, the previous fumefx didnt have this issue.

again ..thanks alot Johnny..

prie.

JohnnyRandom
03-07-2013, 04:18 AM
Yeah I read all previously. Not sure what to say.:shrug::sad: I typically always render/sim to a local network share. I am trying to reproduce it. I was simming up 1600mb, my grid was 150x50x150 at 0.25 without issue. I can fire one off tomorrow night when I leave work at a higher res but I am not going to wait around for something like that to cook.

You or Brian can email me a stripped scene file that exhibits the behavior and I can see if I can reproduce the issue, else I am just shooting in the dark trying to get it to fail.

mcflait
03-07-2013, 03:17 PM
Have you tried using a Krakatoa PRT FumeFX object? There really should be no reason to use pflow with something like this.

Hi Jhonny, thanks so much for your answer.
Yes, i have tried your way, but with PRTFumeFX and with Pflow way, i have the same problem, the simulations are with the same density when i am rendering with Krakatoa.

prieMAX
03-08-2013, 08:23 AM
Yeah I read all previously. Not sure what to say.:shrug::sad: I typically always render/sim to a local network share. I am trying to reproduce it. I was simming up 1600mb, my grid was 150x50x150 at 0.25 without issue. I can fire one off tomorrow night when I leave work at a higher res but I am not going to wait around for something like that to cook.

You or Brian can email me a stripped scene file that exhibits the behavior and I can see if I can reproduce the issue, else I am just shooting in the dark trying to get it to fail.

hi johnny..
i got new scene test (different scene but same problem with network drive), but this time i put all channels and 'sensitivity' using velocity. and guest what, even it say only take sim memory around 500mb...but it eat my ram more than 8gig...and cache file around 200mb -1gig per frame. specialy after the sim out the fumefx cage..i mean start using 'boundless', the cache files become bigger and bigger.
i will send the link for the scene file via PM ... i put at my dropbox. pls check ur message folder.
just load the scene file and change the folder path for cache(pls using network path).. and sim it....let see what happen..hehe.
thanks alot.

info scene:
i am using 3dsmax 2012, it shockwave smoke... drive by pFlow. this test scene actualy i want to see 'bondless' feature.. and i want to compare with N-sim.

again thanks alot

prie

JohnnyRandom
03-08-2013, 05:12 PM
Well I am only on frame 50 of your scene and currently writing 2+ gb files straight to a network attached storage (the same one I originally tested on) without any issues. The max process is using 10 gb (private working mem) and ~90% cpu. getting about 65% network utilization at write time.

I tried another at home last last night to a local network shortcut without issue. I will try another tonight writing to a different machine at home and see what happens.

http://i.imgur.com/2zsQfkC.png

JohnnyRandom
03-09-2013, 07:44 PM
I tested across a VPN network from home to work, slow as mud but still threw zero errors. I tested over wireless and wired connections.

I am either blessed by the gods of networking or there is just something plainly wrong with your guy's networks/credentials/scene setups/pathing something. I cannot get a failure UNLESS I run out of system resources, my network creds were bad, or ran out of disk space. You aren't running a "demo" version are you?

prieMAX
03-11-2013, 03:04 AM
Well I am only on frame 50 of your scene and currently writing 2+ gb files straight to a network attached storage (the same one I originally tested on) without any issues. The max process is using 10 gb (private working mem) and ~90% cpu. getting about 65% network utilization at write time.

I tried another at home last last night to a local network shortcut without issue. I will try another tonight writing to a different machine at home and see what happens.
(image deleted)


thanks johnny for test...
hmm... i also speechless...why u got no issue..
anyway i think u can change 'threshold' sensitivity to above 0.6 (let say 1.0 or 1.2) to minimize file size.

thanks

prie.

prieMAX
03-11-2013, 03:14 AM
I tested across a VPN network from home to work, slow as mud but still threw zero errors. I tested over wireless and wired connections.

I am either blessed by the gods of networking or there is just something plainly wrong with your guy's networks/credentials/scene setups/pathing something. I cannot get a failure UNLESS I run out of system resources, my network creds were bad, or ran out of disk space. You aren't running a "demo" version are you?

well..i believe we are running full version.
we bought ver 3.0.2 ..and we download update 3.5.1, the file name FumeFX35R2012.EXE
i think this one not a demo version.
there is anyway i can check..either demo or not?

and our network/IT guy said..there's nothing wrong with our network, its seem the issue come from the update it self. now we still doing tests.

thanks

prie

finalight
03-11-2013, 03:25 AM
well..i believe we are running full version.
we bought ver 3.0.2 ..and we download update 3.5.1, the file name FumeFX35R2012.EXE
i think this one not a demo version.
there is anyway i can check..either demo or not?

and our network/IT guy said..there's nothing wrong with our network, its seem the issue come from the update it self. now we still doing tests.

thanks

prie

Hi guys,

I'm still leaning toward it being something with the update. All previous versions of Ffx were caching across various networks fine for me until the 3.5.x update. Btw, what OS are you running with both successes and failure? Win7? XP? Might have something to do with it.

JohnnyRandom
03-11-2013, 04:14 AM
You can check in the UI header or the about box. That wasn't exactly what I meant by "demo" :) Sorry, no offense, I had to ask, I helped someone with another issue a little while back that was directly related to using a less than legitimate version.

Why would I want a smaller file size :D We are testing network related issues, the bigger the better.


Me win7 x64 SP1 on all machines. EDIT: Hmm, I have been testing in 2011&2013, I don't use 2012. Brian are you using 2012 too?

This is just the first I have heard about it. No one on the beta board has reported such issues, no one has reported anything in the bug tracker either, or anyone else but you two. That is why I am curious. I am not saying that is doesn't have to do with it, it definitely may be something with 3.5.x, I just can't repro it.


So here is another question, if you sim locally, copy the cache to your network drive, then render, do you have any issues?

finalight
03-11-2013, 04:46 AM
You can check in the UI header or the about box. That wasn't exactly what I meant by "demo" :) Sorry, no offense, I had to ask, I helped someone with another issue a little while back that was directly related to using a less than legitimate version.

Why would I want a smaller file size :D We are testing network related issues, the bigger the better.


Me win7 x64 SP1 on all machines. EDIT: Hmm, I have been testing in 2011&2013, I don't use 2012. Brian are you using 2012 too?

This is just the first I have heard about it. No one on the beta board has reported such issues, no one has reported anything in the bug tracker either, or anyone else but you two. That is why I am curious. I am not saying that is doesn't have to do with it, it definitely may be something with 3.5.x, I just can't repro it.


So here is another question, if you sim locally, copy the cache to your network drive, then render, do you have any issues?

Heya John,

No worries - thx very much for the help - very much appreciated.

It looks like this is occurring on both WinXP x64 and also Win7 x64. When running local sims, network rendering works fine across the farm, with all nodes reading cache from the shared local drive. This has also occurred on RAID drives, USB connection, SATA connection, internal, external. Both UNC path and non.

I have an email into Kres about it. I also haven't seen anything on the Afterworks forum.

prieMAX
03-11-2013, 09:36 AM
You can check in the UI header or the about box. That wasn't exactly what I meant by "demo" :) Sorry, no offense, I had to ask, I helped someone with another issue a little while back that was directly related to using a less than legitimate version.

Why would I want a smaller file size :D We are testing network related issues, the bigger the better.


Me win7 x64 SP1 on all machines. EDIT: Hmm, I have been testing in 2011&2013, I don't use 2012. Brian are you using 2012 too?

This is just the first I have heard about it. No one on the beta board has reported such issues, no one has reported anything in the bug tracker either, or anyone else but you two. That is why I am curious. I am not saying that is doesn't have to do with it, it definitely may be something with 3.5.x, I just can't repro it.


So here is another question, if you sim locally, copy the cache to your network drive, then render, do you have any issues?

hi johnny...
yup..no worry...hehe..., and i checked already...and our's legit.

ok..then, u can fire 'em up with big file size then.. hehe.

our system still using XP 64.

yup..just finished copy to network all the local files cache... and change the path to that network. and its seem rendering fine...no issues. (using the scene i sended to you, i sim over the weekend with threshold 2.0, 36gig space only, and local cache path., all 100 frames done, with no issues)

thanks johnny..


prie.

prieMAX
03-11-2013, 09:42 AM
Heya John,

No worries - thx very much for the help - very much appreciated.

It looks like this is occurring on both WinXP x64 and also Win7 x64. When running local sims, network rendering works fine across the farm, with all nodes reading cache from the shared local drive. This has also occurred on RAID drives, USB connection, SATA connection, internal, external. Both UNC path and non.

I have an email into Kres about it. I also haven't seen anything on the Afterworks forum.


hi Brian,
lol..so only us had this issue.... hehe

prie.

finalight
03-11-2013, 08:05 PM
hi Brian,
lol..so only us had this issue.... hehe

prie.

There are probably more, but some users I spoke to only sim to local so they just don't know they have the issue ;]

I haven't had a chance, but I should also test it out further such as:
--only one type of channel being written?
--tweaks on various params?
--stop/continue active or no
--etc.

JohnnyRandom
03-11-2013, 10:30 PM
I know for a fact a few big studios sim to network storage, usually multiple sims concurrently, I would think we would hear something, eventually. We'll see what Kreso has to say when he gets back from holiday.

finalight
03-11-2013, 10:46 PM
I know for a fact a few big studios sim to network storage, usually multiple sims concurrently, I would think we would hear something, eventually. We'll see what Kreso has to say when he gets back from holiday.

Yep, I'm sure they do - Final Light isn't a large VFX house but I've always simmed to network storage as well ;] (or wish I still could for that matter). My best guess is that something in the code changed and some of us, few though it may be, are getting this memory/network error. It all started with 3.5.x. Haven't had an issue before that all the way back to Alpha stage.

The last response from Kreso was that he couldn't reproduce it and that he'd keep an eye on it. I owed him a test scene and got tied up with projects, so the ball was in my court. Guess I'll ping him again since I see I haven't gone mad and other's are getting the error.

FabianB
03-12-2013, 08:11 AM
Hey guys,

I've updated my script to work with Fume 3.5.1 and added some cool new features:

http://fumefx-training.com/training/IgnitionBeta044.zip

Here is a little tutorial on how to use it:
https://vimeo.com/61607996

And here is the old video if you haven't seen it already:
https://vimeo.com/24329699

The new version has full spacewarp support, so you can add in wind and increment the strength to see how it affects the sim.
You can also do the tests over multiple grids, just add them all in!

cheers,
Fabian

Nickel0531
03-12-2013, 09:26 AM
hello guys ,

I was wondering if Fume could do simulation on thinkbox deadline ?

ive searched online but no result came out :argh:

AdrienSliver
03-12-2013, 04:17 PM
thanks a lot fabian !

JohnnyRandom
03-12-2013, 04:21 PM
Nice Fabian! :)

hello guys ,

I was wondering if Fume could do simulation on thinkbox deadline ?

ive searched online but no result came out :argh:

You need to submit to deadline via maxscript. Or from the help:

Can I Perform Fume FX Simulations With Deadline? Yes. To do so, follow these steps:
Your render nodes need to have Fume FX licensed properly, either with a "full" or "simulation" licenses. This requirement is the same if you were rendering with Backburner.
Before you launch the 3dsmax submission script, make sure that the Fume FX NetRender toggle button is "ON" in the Fume FX options in 3dsmax.
Before you submit the job, make sure the "Disable Progress Update Timeout" option is enabled under the Render in the 3dsmax submission window.

Nickel0531
03-13-2013, 03:50 AM
Nice Fabian! :)



You need to submit to deadline via maxscript. Or from the help:





thank you again Johnny !
really appreciate with all the reply u did :thumbsup:

frint
03-14-2013, 12:03 PM
hi all, I have a problem here.

I read through this thread but, i could not find the solution so, please let me ask new question.

Questions
1. Can I render fumeFX velocity channel with camera motion embdedd?

2. How can I render fumeFX velocity or zDepth channel, unclamped to openEXR.


I tried most of things but couldnt figure it out by my self.
Enyone got good idea? thnx

frint
03-14-2013, 02:04 PM
I found out that, fumeFX velocity channel is opposite with VRay velocity.
Snd it is opposite with ReelSmartMotionBlur too(VRay and RSMB is same).

So you need to set the Ydirection -1.0 at RSMB.

Im not sure about this though...

procanic
03-18-2013, 08:52 PM
has anyone come across the problem that an object w/ mr matte/shadow/reflection shader will not recieve any shadows on areas that are inside a fumefx container?

http://i1270.photobucket.com/albums/jj608/procanic/ffx_shadow_test_01_small_marked.jpg


(spotlight w/ raytraced shadows, autovolume on, ffx cast/recieve shadows on, atmosphere shadows on. standard mat recieves shadows just fine, the mr matte shader only on areas outside the grid.)

am i missing something or is the mr matte/shadow/refl really not 100% compatible w/ fumefx?

my fix for now would be rendering the ground shadow pass w/ scanline, so any suggestion on how i could fix the shadow using mr is most appreciated.

JohnnyRandom
03-18-2013, 10:00 PM
1. Can I render fumeFX velocity channel with camera motion embdedd?

2. How can I render fumeFX velocity or zDepth channel, unclamped to openEXR.


1. Just be sure to include the velocity channel in your simulation. FumeFX supports Image mBlur only, enable it in the Environment Dialog->Atmosphere->Fusionworks Renderer->Create Channels->Image Motion Blur

2. IIRC FFX_Zdepth and FFX_Velocity Render Elements are only 16-bit, not full float, they do not render unclamped, all others should render unclamped (ie FFX_Fire, FFX_Smoke, diffuse, ect)

As for the direction, I think I have heard some different things, ie Nuke specifically the velocity direction is wrong. I can't confirm or deny that though :D


@procanic, hmm never use mental ray, if I were to guess, it is a bug. Have you tried different shadow types?

frint
03-19-2013, 01:33 PM
hello Jhonny, thank you for reply.

1. Just be sure to include the velocity channel in your simulation. FumeFX supports Image mBlur only, enable it in the Environment Dialog->Atmosphere->Fusionworks Renderer->Create Channels->Image Motion Blur

I tired this but I didnt get the camera motion.
When my camera is panning fast, other velocities like Vray Velocity will create the vector of the camera pan. But at fusionworks Renderer, it wont. Will It seems to me though.
May be Fusionworks Renderer wont support camera motion.

About clamping, thank you for the answer! Ill stop testing these things.
And about Direction of velocity, im not familier to Nuke but the color of velocity element rendered was opposite besides Fusionworks and VRay.

thank you !

procanic
03-19-2013, 03:27 PM
thanks for the suggestion, john. (and for the fx floater & ffx bbq as well on this occasion! ;) )
yes, i've tried all available shadow types. couldn't try AB shadows though, cause we don't have any AB licences :/ ...
from what i've heard/read, most people seem to use vray or fr with fume. i might be able to get a vray1.5 license for this project. just wondering if there are also any drawbacks using vray w/ fumefx, since i found that using scanline or mr w/ fume has pros and cons either way ...
does vray support the ffx smoke & fire render elements?

@frint:
i did a quick test and can confirm that fusionworks' velocity pass doesn't take camera motion into account at all. can vray's velocity pass give you a correct result with fumefx' internal velocities + camera motion?
really interested! would be one more reason to get a vray license ;) ...

JohnnyRandom
03-19-2013, 03:40 PM
hello Jhonny, thank you for reply.
May be Fusionworks Renderer wont support camera motion.


The only way I know of to generate camera motion blur on the FFX Velocity render element is to use multi-pass in the camera.

JohnnyRandom
03-19-2013, 03:49 PM
thanks for the suggestion, john. (and for the fx floater & ffx bbq as well on this occasion! ;) )
yes, i've tried all available shadow types. couldn't try AB shadows though, cause we don't have any AB licences :/ ...
from what i've heard/read, most people seem to use vray or fr with fume. i might be able to get a vray1.5 license for this project. just wondering if there are also any drawbacks using vray w/ fumefx, since i found that using scanline or mr w/ fume has pros and cons either way ...
does vray support the ffx smoke & fire render elements?


Sorry I missed your post, small bit of history, the only reason mr is supported was simply because it is a "shipping" render and many people asked for it. Its problems typically stem from the fact the everything from max needs to be translated into something mr can read. Other 3rd party renderers are more native, meaning they don't require a translator. It would be like using renderMan with max.

VRay works really well with Fume (probably because they have Phoenix) fR works well to, admittedly I haven't used it nearly as much as I have with Vray. That said I am still not sure you are going to get complete velocity vectors in the RE's.

procanic
03-19-2013, 05:43 PM
thanks for the history update on why mr sucks w/ fume :D - totally makes sense & i think i'll have to try to organize a vray lic ...

The only way I know of to generate camera motion blur on the FFX Velocity render element is to use multi-pass in the camera.
yeah, that's what i thought as well. tried that while doing that quick test for frint. the thing is, that it just blurs the velocity channel, thus lowering the color intensity. here's what it looks like:

http://i1270.photobucket.com/albums/jj608/procanic/fume_velocityPass_multipass.jpg


should't it just alter/intensify the colors (motion information) instead while keeping the shape of an unblured object/fluid?
trying to achieve that i also set the duration in the multi pass effect to zero, hoping that it just reads the cam motion as information for the velocity pass without applying any motion blur to RGBA or any passes. result in the velocity channel was the same (color wise) as without the multi-pass effect ...

guess if you want to have camera motion blur you'll have to render it directly into the RGBA or do it in post without a vector pass. or am i missing something here?

JohnnyRandom
03-19-2013, 06:03 PM
I suppose it should be using Additive when it adds each pass, instead it is more like screen or overlay but yeah it is just adding each subsequent pass on top of the old, which is the only reason why it "works" in the first place.

I suspect you may be able to do something fancy via script. Possibley try exporting a helper to the compositor your using, get the motion vector of the camera helper at time A & B and calculate the length and direction then apply a vector blur per frame, I do not know how acceptable vector blur plugins are to scripted input as I have never tried it, this just seems one way you could go about doing it.

BTW:
Tool for Automated Dust Trails (http://procanic.blogspot.com/2012/07/tool-for-automated-dust-trails.html)

Cool! :D

procanic
03-21-2013, 11:28 AM
thanks for all the suggestions, john - really appreciate it! i talked to the comp guys about your idea of calculating the v-pass in post from cam motion. could be possible - at least they said they'll give it a shot & see what they can come up with ;) ...
glad you like that old dust trail tool - your post doubled my blog's daily visitors rate for the last two days. :D i'd love to extend it to use fluids as well, since right now it's all just particle based. been thinking about a private rewrite since quite some time (so i could make it public) but have no clue how to make time for that currently :shrug: ...

frint
03-21-2013, 04:54 PM
procanic, thank you very much for the tests!

and for next step, ill try create vector with the helper in post.
with ReelSmartMotionBlur, you can make custom vector with the track point, so, Ill try that.
And composite the velocity with the FusionWorks velocity.
Or you can render some plane at the fume grid, and use that vector for merge with.

But, i think its not that worth....
Its easier to do with no v-pass. and it works pretty fine. As you say,
guess if you want to have camera motion blur you'll have to render it directly into the RGBA or do it in post without a vector pass.
And, for the question above:
can vray's velocity pass give you a correct result with fumefx' internal velocities + camera motion?
The answer is No, for 3dsmax VRay( Im not sure for VRay for Maya).
fumeFX would not appear to VRay Velocity pass at all.... :(
Also, VRay RaytraceShadow cant cast the object shadows to fume...

again, thank you Jhony, procanic!! I really helped.

cool blog ;)

Glacierise
03-21-2013, 05:22 PM
Rendering with Krakatoa gives great motionblur too :)

JohnnyRandom
03-22-2013, 06:35 PM
Very good point, if they could get faster speeds out of Voxel mode it would be much more viable IMO and getting the FFX Color channel piped into the PRT FumeFX would be f'n huge! As it is having Magma to tweak with is awesome and all of the other love that comes with Krakatoa, a few more things and that pipeline would be solid. :)

Glacierise
03-22-2013, 07:16 PM
Stoke would help with that. You can pick up UVs from emitters, emit from separate filtered sources, add motion with particles, partition. KCM. Lots of options!

JohnnyRandom
03-22-2013, 07:41 PM
Pretty sure Stoke would also benefit from access to that :D Only born new particles based on color ;) Color derived from temp, or velocity, or turbulence, ect. Dude oysters lots of oysters!

Glacierise
03-22-2013, 10:30 PM
It would be useful :)

tamagochy
03-26-2013, 08:31 AM
My R'n'D of the big explosion...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSq82DWyydk

Debneyink
03-26-2013, 03:27 PM
I'm doing a plane flying low to the ground and wanted to add the dust being whipped up...

i saw a test recently on this thread of a helicopter it looked really good just wondering if anyone could give me a few tips...

do i sim the fume on the ground plane and set inital state?

any tips welcome!


cheers

debneyink

Shletten
03-26-2013, 10:11 PM
My R'n'D of the big explosion...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSq82DWyydk
Nice job! I dig it. Kinda wish I could make something similar but I haven't tried FumeFX seriously yet.

Tollman
04-02-2013, 09:00 AM
I want to find out what simulation mode is set in the ui.
Essentially what i want is when i (with our inhouse tool) send the file to be simmed in backburner, and if the simulation mode is set to wavelet, and the wavelet path is set to "c:\" it should give me an error before submitting.
But i dont want it to care about the wavelet if i just want to simulate the default grid.
I haven't found script solutions to this, or any other way to solve it.

Anyone has a solution for this?

Kresimir
04-02-2013, 08:56 PM
Hello,

I am glad to inform you that FumeFX 3.5.2 is out and it fixes the &quot;Low RAM&quot; issue.
It seems that on some systems the file write operation can time out, so we made saving in smaller chunks to keep the connection alive.

Regards,

Kresimir Tkalcec


thanks johnny for test...
hmm... i also speechless...why u got no issue..
anyway i think u can change 'threshold' sensitivity to above 0.6 (let say 1.0 or 1.2) to minimize file size.

thanks

prie.

JohnnyRandom
04-02-2013, 09:56 PM
I want to find out what simulation mode is set in the ui.
Essentially what i want is when i (with our inhouse tool) send the file to be simmed in backburner, and if the simulation mode is set to wavelet, and the wavelet path is set to "c:\" it should give me an error before submitting.
But i dont want it to care about the wavelet if i just want to simulate the default grid.
I haven't found script solutions to this, or any other way to solve it.

Anyone has a solution for this?

You can do somehting like this, it will print out the state of each of the given params. You could easily set the states to in the same script it should be straightforward enough as i have listed what each integer is equal to which mode.


for i in objects where classOf i == fumefx do
(
format "<---Grid %--->\n" i.name --Current Grids Name
curCache = case i.SelectedCache of --Current Cache in use
(
0: "Default"
1: "Initial State"
2: "Wavelet"
3: "Post"
)
format " |Cache - % \n" curCache
curMode = case i.SimMode of --Current Simulation Mode
(
0: "Default"
1: "Initial State"
2: "Wavelet"
3: "Post"
)
format " |Mode - %\n" curMode
format " |Paths: \n"
for p in 0 to 4 do --Current Grids Paths
(
pathType = case p of
(
0: (" Default - ")+(i.GetPath "default" as string)
1: (" Wavelet - ")+(i.GetPath "wavelet" as string)
2: (" Post - ")+(i.GetPath "retimer" as string)
3: (" I. Map - ")+(i.GetPath "illummap" as string)
4: (" Preview - ")+(i.GetPath #Preview as string)
)
format " % \n" pathType
)
curNet = i.BackBurnerSim --BackBurner mode
format " |BB Mode - %\n " curNet
)

prieMAX
04-03-2013, 04:56 PM
Hello,

I am glad to inform you that FumeFX 3.5.2 is out and it fixes the &quot;Low RAM&quot; issue.
It seems that on some systems the file write operation can time out, so we made saving in smaller chunks to keep the connection alive.

Regards,

Kresimir Tkalcec

at last...hehe....thanks alot...
hopely now ..we/ i can go back using network drive....
and thanks to johnnyrandom too for testing our scene.
again thanks alot.

prie

Tollman
04-04-2013, 09:40 PM
You can do somehting like this, it will print out the state of each of the given params. You could easily set the states to in the same script it should be straightforward enough as i have listed what each integer is equal to which mode.


Thanks!
The "i.SimMode" flag was what i was searching for.

neomass
04-06-2013, 10:03 AM
Hello! I apologize in advance if this question has already sounded on this forum. I have a problem I do not know how to solve. I need to make animation were some burning object is passing trought the camera on a hi speed. In the middle of my movie i need to make a big slowmotion like in the film such as the matrix. Tell me how to do it correctly? I crashing my brain trying to slove it more than a week and cant find the answer by myself.
I tried to do the very slow burning object with key animation and a decrease in the parameter Time-stsale but in this case I disappear a trace of fire. And the slowing effect is lost. Thank you very much for your fast reply.
here is the shot http://www.sendspace.com/file/2w5sr8

Phlok
04-08-2013, 02:29 PM
I've got an issue with Max 2013 crashing each time I want to make a preview out of FumeFX (Preview -> Make Preview). The studio here is on FFX 2.1c and I've checked if there were any problems with user rights, but there aren't. Has anyone else seen this behaviour?

JohnnyRandom
04-08-2013, 09:01 PM
Not me sorry, I haven't even run 2.x in 2013.

Do you get to the pick codec window?

What codec are you trying to wrap the preview with?

If so, you are trying to use quicktime I would try a standard uncompressed avi or even xvid if you want mp4.

Phlok
04-09-2013, 08:01 AM
I've tried Video1 as well as uncompressed. Neither did work.
I did tests on two different machines, both running Max2013 and FumeFX 2.1c and both are crashing when trying to create a preview.

Snake Eyess
04-09-2013, 12:09 PM
create preview tends to randomly do that...
One scene it will make the preview and then in another it will just refuse

I found 2 things that sometimes solve the problem.
A) render to a Sequence (I.E. tga or JPG)
B) lower the output size under "Percent of Output"

Phlok
04-09-2013, 03:54 PM
There was a reproducable crash on two different machines using Max 2013/ FFX 2.1c After I installed Max 2012, Making Previews out of FumeFX works like a delight.

JohnnyRandom
04-14-2013, 07:22 PM
Really strange, sorry you had to go back a version but at least it is working.

3.x has been out for two years, out of curiosity is there a specific reason you guys haven't upgraded yet?

Phlok
04-15-2013, 03:16 PM
They don't do this kind of effects here very often and there is no specific reason to update for the current project.

Daniel-B
04-18-2013, 02:03 PM
I haven't done an explosion sim in a while, but I've finally almost completely eliminated the dreaded "bubbling" expansion at the beginning of explosion sims. This one isn't 100% what I want, but I feel it's almost there.

https://vimeo.com/64288638

Edit: Uploaded my latest sim scene file if any of you are interested in playing with it.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/73226790/explosion_4_17_2013.max

fireknght2
04-18-2013, 05:21 PM
I haven't done an explosion sim in a while, but I've finally almost completely eliminated the dreaded "bubbling" expansion at the beginning of explosion sims. This one isn't 100% what I want, but I feel it's almost there.

https://vimeo.com/64288638

It appears to be fine to me depending on the fuel you may or may not get a bubble effect, I like what you've done...:)

Rich

Daniel-B
04-18-2013, 06:57 PM
It appears to be fine to me depending on the fuel you may or may not get a bubble effect, I like what you've done...:)

Rich

What I mean about bubble effects is that unturbed leading edge on fast moving fluid simulations that always looks really fake. Take my previous test for example. The explosion looks good mid way through, but the beginning is just 4 or 5 hollow looking fire shaded bubble shapes, that looks bad.

https://vimeo.com/47798297

And back to this one today, the beginning feels more natural I think, but I can still make it better I believe with a little bit of tweaking.

https://vimeo.com/64288638

Edit: Uploaded my latest sim scene file if any of you are interested in playing with it.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/73226790/explosion_4_17_2013.max

fireknght2
04-18-2013, 07:27 PM
What I mean about bubble effects is that unturbed leading edge on fast moving fluid simulations that always looks really fake. Take my previous test for example. The explosion looks good mid way through, but the beginning is just 4 or 5 hollow looking fire shaded bubble shapes, that looks bad.

https://vimeo.com/47798297

And back to this one today, the beginning feels more natural I think, but I can still make it better I believe with a little bit of tweaking.

https://vimeo.com/64288638

I'm seeing that effect your talking about appears to me more of rounded effect instead of the crisp presentation you have in the second video. Tricky thing fire and explosions, seems as if you got them under control though.

Rich

prieMAX
04-19-2013, 10:50 AM
after my office downloaded the update fumefx 3.5.2 ...and try it.
so far so good.. can use back network drive for caching without errors.
fumefx can finished all frames.

thanks sitni sati for update, thanks johnnyrandom for testing our scene.

regards,
prie.

adom86
04-25-2013, 01:41 PM
Strange! This week I get terrible viewport performance when having Fume preview window open under GPU and non-GPU previews. Anyone had this before? I have to set viewport update to 0 as it adds about 10 seconds on per frame!

Fume 3.5.1
Quadro 4000 (old one)
Max 2012

Shall login and try the latest fume see if any better.

JohnnyRandom
04-25-2013, 06:12 PM
Unless you are prototyping, r&d, look dev, I leave the preview window closed. It has to read the data from mem or disk then draw. If using GPU you could be calling for objects and/or shadows too that all takes time to calculate.

If you are using the viewport visualization tools (ie VP velocity, smoke, fire, ect) you will make it even slower! You are throwing soooo much data at both the viewport and the preview window it just gobbles up CPU/GPU just to display. You are robbing power from simulation cycles.

Seriously you should never forget to close your preview window and disable VP display when you run a sim, particlulary if you are not going to watch the paint dry, it can cost you quite a bit of time.

All that said in 3.5.2 there were issues addressed directly related to GPU Preview window performance so you should see some gains.

adom86
04-25-2013, 06:37 PM
Thanks for the tips! Never had this issue before but I have updated fume and graphics drivers, see a drastic improvement although I did install it on max 2014. Shall see if improved on 2012 tomorrow. Hopefully coming off 2012 at work, be glad to see the back of it :)

lordyanting
04-26-2013, 04:19 AM
hi guys, I had come across this problem and couldn't find any solution else where, let say I had an animation of 45 frame, after I post processing it retime in 0.5, I got a end result of 88 frame instead of 90 frame, is there any way to fix it?tried with other scenes as well there's always 2 - 3 frame missing.

JohnnyRandom
04-26-2013, 08:05 PM
Did you try re-timing with a value of 0.55? instead of 0.5.

Just a guess, I would expect with any value less than 1.0 you are creating frames based off of interpolated values from the frame before and the frame after, you might always be 1 less frame.

lordyanting
05-02-2013, 08:33 AM
nope didn't thought of this since my fume is tied with an animation so it would probably offset if retime value is different, but no harm trying though thanks!

Phlok
05-02-2013, 09:41 AM
Is it possible to make FumeFX interact with a particle system?

I've tried the following using TP, but without success:

1) Shot some particles as standard shapes into the fume conatiner, unfortunately, I couldn't select the TP system as collision Object inside TP's Objects Tab, so this didn't do anything.

2) Instead, I instanced a sphere to the particles, selected that sphere as collision object, but this didn't affect the fluid, either.

Is it possible somehow to influence FFX with a TP system? Did I maybe miss something in my setup? Any other ideas?

silwerfeldt
05-03-2013, 12:09 PM
Is it possible to make FumeFX interact with a particle system?

I've tried the following using TP, but without success:

1) Shot some particles as standard shapes into the fume conatiner, unfortunately, I couldn't select the TP system as collision Object inside TP's Objects Tab, so this didn't do anything.

2) Instead, I instanced a sphere to the particles, selected that sphere as collision object, but this didn't affect the fluid, either.

Is it possible somehow to influence FFX with a TP system? Did I maybe miss something in my setup? Any other ideas?

Maybe you can use a mesher on your particle system. Iīm not infront my Computer right now so i canīt test ut.. I think it should work.

cojoMan
05-06-2013, 07:05 AM
Is it possible to make FumeFX interact with a particle system?

I've tried the following using TP, but without success:

1) Shot some particles as standard shapes into the fume conatiner, unfortunately, I couldn't select the TP system as collision Object inside TP's Objects Tab, so this didn't do anything.

2) Instead, I instanced a sphere to the particles, selected that sphere as collision object, but this didn't affect the fluid, either.

Is it possible somehow to influence FFX with a TP system? Did I maybe miss something in my setup? Any other ideas?



in the master dynamic setup - use the "group as objects" checkbox
they will be selectable by group as deformable geometry - also you will be able to pick them in the mesher, use modifiers on top /etc

ps.also, you can use instead of the colliding geometry - only the particles' velocities - you might only want that, so you can drive your simulation forces by those inside TP.

Phlok
05-06-2013, 10:22 AM
Thank you very much, guys. Exactly what i was looking for!!

Rareden
05-17-2013, 07:30 AM
Is there a way to control boyancy over age? like with a volcano it will rise a certain amount then slow its accent and get blown by the wind

Nickel0531
05-18-2013, 05:41 AM
Hi guys!

I was doing reserch about rendering ffx with vray,
is there any advantage using GI render smoke only ? (no fire only smoke. )
cuz I put vray HDRI on GI environment,
and the smoke render result does not have any difference between Gi on and off.
am I get any wrong about this ?

finalight
05-18-2013, 05:55 AM
Hi guys!

I was doing reserch about rendering ffx with vray,
is there any advantage using GI render smoke only ? (no fire only smoke. )
cuz I put vray HDRI on GI environment,
and the smoke render result does not have any difference between Gi on and off.
am I get any wrong about this ?

I haven't researched this in-depth however I believe that is currently only available in some form with Final Render.

finalight
05-18-2013, 05:58 AM
Is there a way to control boyancy over age? like with a volcano it will rise a certain amount then slow its accent and get blown by the wind

This would be a perfect situation for using Effectors.

Nickel0531
05-18-2013, 06:39 AM
I haven't researched this in-depth however I believe that is currently only available in some form with Final Render.


too bad to hear that ;s
i asked about this because theres a vray GI multiply on ffx render tab but only works for fire.
so i was wondering if GI effects smoke or not .

anyway, thanks for reply finallight :)

finalight
05-18-2013, 07:03 AM
too bad to hear that ;s
i asked about this because theres a vray GI multiply on ffx render tab but only works for fire.
so i was wondering if GI effects smoke or not .

anyway, thanks for reply finallight :)

Very welcome - yes I agree. I've done a bit of testing with using Vray to illuminate smoke as an ambient occlusion type pass. Vray is excellent at casting AO shadowing from smoke onto objects as well as it's fire GI and looks wonderful for fire/smoke explosions comped into shots with very nice integration. Not that you asked, but both Vray and Mental Ray (others?) offer the above however they each provide a different look.

Phlok
06-05-2013, 11:16 AM
Does anybody know of a way to eliminate parts of the FFX container after simulation? Like deleting voxel content via scripting.

I am asking because we are creating PFlow particles from FumeFX simulations. For some limitations in PFlow, we are limited to 10M particles per PFlow Partition, which is slightly problematic.

PFlow creates particles in areas off camera, so I am looking for a way to delete those areas out of the FFX container prior to PFlow creating particles.

Thank you in advance for any hints.

3ak
06-05-2013, 01:23 PM
you can create second grid with the same (bigger) dimensions as first one, add fumefx source with first (simulated grid) as source, turn off all sim stages in script (forces, advection, projection, combustion) in second grid and add void source to delete all you don't need (or inverse).
BUT. this will work with smoke, temp, vel fields. No fire. there is no burn (fire) field in fumefx source so you can't bring it to the second grid. But if all you need to advect particles vel field is all you need

JohnnyRandom
06-05-2013, 02:16 PM
This may or may not work in your case but you could also try to get rid of them on the pflow side. You can cull them with a camera cull op, or data op.

You can also thin the grid with pflow FumeFX test and a delete op. set an inverse of a channel specify min/max values for the voxel and the test will send them out to delete.

Phlok
06-05-2013, 04:32 PM
I'll try the duplicate container idea tomorrow. The problem with the PFlow approach is the particles need to get birthed inside PFlow and being addressed an ID. So this ID is consumed and AFAIK it will not be issued again, so my problem (all PFlow IDs consumed, so no new particles born) isn't solved.

I need to kill the volume information in FFX, before particles are created in PFlow.

JohnnyRandom
06-05-2013, 05:18 PM
Are you on 32-bit version of max? These are Per Source limits:


The limit was changed with the Creativity Extension for Max 2009 (and now effective in Max 2010 and up).
For 32-bit: 50,000,000 ( 50 million )
For 64-bit: 1,000,000,000 ( 1 billion )

Thanks,
Oleg B.


You could cull via KCM too, then pipe into pflow, all without overhead of running another sim.

Phlok
06-11-2013, 05:17 PM
Some questions...

I have an animated object that is rushing relatively quickly through a fume container, emitting particles. From those particles smoke and velocity is emitted into the container.

Now, I use this simulation to drive a particle system via FumeFX Birth/ Follow inside PFlow. No matter what I do (increase amount of particles, have it emit smoke to some crazy extent, use a diffusor to twirl the particles, it all looks strange, boring and none like the basic FumeFX simulation. Right as if Pflow wasn't creating any more particles based on this kind of simulation.

I already cranked up and checked the Max Particle for the PF_Sources (the reason for my question further above).

Though, it seems like if I emit directly from geometry (instead of first emitting particles from that very geometry) everything is working more the way I was expecting it to work.

Is there any known issue with that?

alexhalstead
06-12-2013, 01:27 AM
Hey Flo,
I've always found using FumeFX Birth quite problematic when it comes to controlling initial velocities of my particles in PFlow and have almost always opted to emit from geometry instead. The main reason being that while your smoke or fire may have great motion, the velocity data is usually dramatically different around the source. So I usually just emit from geometry that roughly matches my fume emission and control the initial velocity with the speed operators.

Some questions...

I have an animated object that is rushing relatively quickly through a fume container, emitting particles. From those particles smoke and velocity is emitted into the container.

Now, I use this simulation to drive a particle system via FumeFX Birth/ Follow inside PFlow. No matter what I do (increase amount of particles, have it emit smoke to some crazy extent, use a diffusor to twirl the particles, it all looks strange, boring and none like the basic FumeFX simulation. Right as if Pflow wasn't creating any more particles based on this kind of simulation.

I already cranked up and checked the Max Particle for the PF_Sources (the reason for my question further above).

Though, it seems like if I emit directly from geometry (instead of first emitting particles from that very geometry) everything is working more the way I was expecting it to work.

Is there any known issue with that?

CAICARA
06-12-2013, 09:33 AM
Hey there,

i have two different smoke emitter with different colors. I want them to collide and influence their movement each other.

But everytime i start them to emit, they mixing up and create a new color. I tryed with higher density, but couldnīt get satisfiying results.

Does anyone have an Idea?

Phlok
06-12-2013, 09:40 AM
Thank you. This totally makes sense. Another thing I am trying to find out is how to get density thats near the kind of density coming out of FumeFX Simple source emitters.

In my scene, some geometry moves through a smoke cloud that was originally created by a FumeFX simple source emitter. The geo has a FumeFX Object Source emitter attached to it, that is really spewing out a lot of density.

Rendering FumeFX, I cannot see any difference between the stuff created by the FFX object source and ond FFX simple source.

However, after PFlow Birth/Follow-ing, there are significant differences in the density of the smokecloud that was created by FFX Simple Source and FFX object source. The particle seeding in the smoke from the object source isn't anywhere near the simple source's density.

I tried playing with the PFlow FFX Birth Smoke min/ Max parameters but thet didn't seem to have any effect at all.

fuat
06-12-2013, 01:32 PM
Now, I use this simulation to drive a particle system via FumeFX Birth/ Follow inside PFlow. No matter what I do (increase amount of particles, have it emit smoke to some crazy extent, use a diffusor to twirl the particles, it all looks strange, boring and none like the basic FumeFX simulation. Right as if Pflow wasn't creating any more particles based on this kind of simulation.


did you already check out stokeMX?
i beta tested it for a few weeks, and it gives great results regarding particles driven by fumefx. it is extremely fast (much much faster than PFlow following fumefx) and you can even add different attributes, increase particle count, modify velocities with the magma modifier, etc..
hope this helps..
fuat

JohnnyRandom
06-14-2013, 12:08 AM
However, after PFlow Birth/Follow-ing, there are significant differences in the density of the smokecloud that was created by FFX Simple Source and FFX object source. The particle seeding in the smoke from the object source isn't anywhere near the simple source's density.


They are totally different emitter types, of course they won't emit exactly the same. Simple Sources have a directional velocity component, Object sources have a normals velocity component. By default Simple sources emit from volume while Object Sources emit from solid. Emitting from volume creates more fluid. If you zero out all of the emitter velocities and match the fluid channels and emission type you will get as close as possible, which is pretty close, that is the best that can happen.

Notice, turn on viewport display, raise the "Reduce" threshold to ~6.o or so (scene dependent), enable the Smoke channel, turn on Show Slice + (typically) XZ, adjust position, and enable numerical values. This will tell you exactly how much smoke density you have in a voxel. These are useful tools, use them (with the exception of a few, no one else does :sad: ), that is why they are there ;) This will give you a real good idea of what is happening.

EDIT: super simple example of what I mean:

Kreff
07-10-2013, 11:22 AM
Hi everyone,

I am new to 3D modelling and FumeFX particularly but I like experimenting and right now trying to make a smoke animation for one of my ufo models.

The point is that I need to get looped animation of smoke that would come from ufo body like after crash as if something's broken in its case.

But I have no idea how to do that. I made the smoke animation and it simulates fine but how can I make it looped like if something's still burning and smoke coming from it.

Hopefully, it makes sense :) (sorry English is not my native)

Thanks in advance

takhachhe
08-04-2013, 09:29 AM
While We continue the simulation then one alert dialog box appears as Stop/ Continue was found after frame ## , Do you want to proceed ?
So , I m trying to make script which automatally proceed as Yes, Is there any way to ignore this alert or like I said above Is there any way so that script automatically force to proceed yes..

takhachhe
08-04-2013, 09:37 AM
I m using fumefx 3.01 ..
I have seen this feature in 3.5 as a new feature .. Is it possible in fumefx 3.0
If there is then how..

new feature 3.5
- MXS command ffxSilent - no Message box will show up (like Stop/Continue, etc).

JohnnyRandom
08-04-2013, 04:04 PM
You should be at least using 3.02 if you have not upgraded to 3.5.2, we generally know why people use 3.01 ;)

I have a script that handles this... I am reluctant to help for reasons you should understand :curious: You have been using Fume for a while now.

Daniel-B
08-07-2013, 04:16 PM
Man, this thread has died lately. No one doing any more cool FumeFx stuffs? :p

J-Bond
08-07-2013, 04:43 PM
Everybody done a fire, dust, trails, explosions and pyroclastic clouds, clouds.
Not sure what also can be discussed? :)

PsychoSilence
08-07-2013, 05:00 PM
Man, this thread has died lately. No one doing any more cool FumeFx stuffs? :p

Here! ;)
https://vimeo.com/71900007
Star Trek - Into Darkness Making Of (FumeFX elements for 13 shots)

fireknght2
08-07-2013, 05:08 PM
Here! ;)
https://vimeo.com/71900007
Star Trek - Into Darkness Making Of (FumeFX elements for 13 shots)


Digital FX is the way to go!

Daniel-B
08-07-2013, 08:19 PM
Here! ;)
https://vimeo.com/71900007
Star Trek - Into Darkness Making Of (FumeFX elements for 13 shots)



Oh man, that's what I'm talking about. Good stuff. I'm also jealous you worked on a Star Trek production, it's one of my life dreams. Heh.

PsychoSilence
08-07-2013, 08:36 PM
Oh man, that's what I'm talking about. Good stuff. I'm also jealous you worked on a Star Trek production, it's one of my life dreams. Heh.

Thanks :) Appreciate it!

Midgardsormr
08-10-2013, 01:07 AM
Apologies if this has been addressed already, but I didn't see it in the first 50 or so pages of the thread, and I'm running short on time.

I am using FFX to create clouds, and this week I have begun seeing an artifact that I do not recall having noticed before (this is not my actual sim, just a test to exaggerate the problem):
http://www.bryanray.name/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/fume_artifact.jpg

I am simming a single frame and using an object_src with lots of extra velocity to get wispy edges. Modifications to settings on the sim, render, illumination and src tabs have no effect on the artifact. I can, oddly, reduce the effect somewhat by increasing my spacing, and it gets worse if I leave the spacing alone and increase the size of the container. It is also clearly visible in the alpha.

I've restarted the computer, created new grids, rotated the grids, and subbed in different geometry, all without effect. I've twiddled pretty well every knob I could get my hands on. I've created a new scene and reimported my cameras. I have the feeling that I'm missing something blindingly obvious.

If this is a known issue that's been addressed elsewhere, feel free to point me in the general direction. Thanks for your help,

procanic
08-10-2013, 08:59 AM
If your advection type is set to "Advanced (fields and vels)" you could try changing it to "Default" or "Advanced (fields)" since the fields and vels method is nice for slow moving fluids, while with fast moving fields (high velocities) it can cause these kinda artifacts (lines or crosses). Hope this helps ...

Midgardsormr
08-10-2013, 07:45 PM
Unfortunately, it doesn't. That was among the first things that I tried, since I've seen that artifact before, but this doesn't really look like that. I usually keep advection on default for this effect since the advanced settings really don't do much that is helpful in a single-frame sim.

… about an hour later …

The Fume expert at work just had an idea and poked at the scene for a bit. He's never seen this particular artifact, but he discovered that it has something to do with the Step Size in the Rendering Parameters. He changed it to 100% with 50% Jitter, and the problem shrank into near imperceptibility. I'd twiddled with those settings on my own, but apparently I didn't push them far enough to see the difference. Always humbling when someone solves in a few minutes something that I've been struggling with for two days.

So it's nothing to do with the simulation and entirely in the sampling settings.

http://www.bryanray.name/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/artifact_solved.jpg

procanic
08-11-2013, 11:19 AM
glad you got it solved and thanks for sharing the solution! :)

takhachhe
08-11-2013, 06:43 PM
How you use - MXS command ffxSilent in 3.5

I tried different techniques but ffx silent is not working in fumefx 3.5

procanic
08-29-2013, 09:09 AM
I've tried it as well with no success. It's supposed to be a system global if i'm not mistaken, but it's actually "undefined" on startup. Manually defining and setting it has no effect either. Also doesn't seem to be a hidden property. At least showProperties($) contains nothing like "ffxSilent" ... really strange. Could be a handy feature. Curious if it would even sim a bit faster without the Message box ...

Also wanted to share a project a friend & colleague just posted in Finished Work: Animation and Showreels (http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?f=154&t=1122144). I was happy to do FX on this fun project. For those of you following this thread closely, you might recognize a frame of the movie because it appeared on this thread before, when i had some shadow issues (http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?p=7546155#post7546155) ;) ... Thanks again for the support!
Cheers! :beer:

JohnnyRandom
08-29-2013, 03:01 PM
It is global ffxsilent = 1

Takhachhe support future dev, buy a license ;)

procanic
08-29-2013, 03:39 PM
yeah, i've tried that also like
global ffxsilent = 1
$.RunSimulation(0)
but it doesnt seem to work. Message box (like Stop/Continue) still pops up. Am I missing something?

JohnnyRandom
08-29-2013, 04:11 PM
Sorry, my bad it was't clear what I wrote. It is a global, ie system wide all grids will no longer ask when the switch is set to 1.

ffxsilent = 1

and it works as expected.

The second part you will simply start the simulation over at the beginning again, you need to use this to continue:

$.continueSimulation(0)

You could easily write a case statement and function that checks your sim folder to see if you have files, then check to see if they match the selected grids simulation range (crude you may need another check or two for file size/timeDate stamp) then either run a simulation or a continue simulation.

procanic
08-29-2013, 04:47 PM
Ah, my mistake! :argh: somehow i thought it's going to suppress the progress window as well. :D - Thanks, for the explanation, Johnny! Indeed works as expected. :)

nonuel
08-30-2013, 11:55 AM
Hey, you know how I can fix this?

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/199/tzhe.jpg/

takhachhe
09-01-2013, 07:30 PM
Hey JRandom
no $ to by license peresonally ..

but I recommended my studio to buy fumefx 3.5. and they bought one for testing purpose and hope they will buy more soon .. It ll be done after going on project is done..

by the way thankx for the help..

jigu
09-24-2013, 01:59 PM
Hi Everyone,

I am late to the fumefx party but I hope you like it.
Explosion tests I did in last week.

https://vimeo.com/75006052
https://vimeo.com/75280593

Glacierise
09-28-2013, 11:23 PM
Check this out - FFX cache tool - auto set cache folders, batch cache, Deadline sim :)

http://velevfx.com/2013/09/28/a-more-robust-fumefx-cache-tool-set-cache-paths-batch-sim-deadline-sim-with-progress-indicator/

JohnnyRandom
09-29-2013, 03:26 AM
A+ nice work, good new automation methods to be had :-)

v_miller
10-03-2013, 05:50 PM
Does anyone have advice on achieving a flashover effect. I'm not really interested in the initials flash of fire so much as I am getting the rolling flames that expand across the surface of a ceiling. I've tried a fire only solution and it just doesn't seem to be working out.

Here is a link to what I am trying to emulate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7yRYiZ_xKE

Thanks

V Miller

Daniel-B
10-08-2013, 05:32 PM
Does anyone have advice on achieving a flashover effect. I'm not really interested in the initials flash of fire so much as I am getting the rolling flames that expand across the surface of a ceiling. I've tried a fire only solution and it just doesn't seem to be working out.

Here is a link to what I am trying to emulate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7yRYiZ_xKE

Thanks

V Miller


Have you tried making a pocket of fuel against the ceiling and then making a heat source at one end to ignite that fuel? Here is a shot I did with Fume igniting an oil slick on an ocean surface. I basically just laid a strip of fuel on the ocean surface, and then ignited one end of it with a temperature simple source.

https://vimeo.com/52121444

I imagine a similar thing could be done for what you are trying to do, but you'd need to make sure the fuel was 0 buoyancy, so that it does not fall nor does it rise. Emit it from a noise mapped geometry near the ceiling, then ignite one end of it with a temp source.

v_miller
10-08-2013, 05:58 PM
thanks for the reply.

I did actually try something similar to that but I couldn't get the flames to propagate through the entire fume volume. they just stayed by the temperature source.

Are you animating the temperature source across the fuel or is it just staying where it is and the fuel is catching fire as the voxels near them rise in temperature?

thanks,

V Miller

JohnnyRandom
10-08-2013, 09:58 PM
Just a courteous FYI

What's new in FumeFX 3.5.3
==========================
+ ADDED: Gamma correction to the FusionWorks Renderer.
+ FIXED: TP particle would pop at the frame when it dies off.
+ ADDED: Multiple selected object/sources… can be enabled or disabled .
+ FIXED: Hitting ESC during the Render Warps baking process could hang 3ds max.
+ FIXED: There were situations when grid would not expand/shrink properly.
+ FIXED: GPU Preview issues fix.
+ ADDED: MXS support to get/set FumeFX MXS path.
+ FIXED: FumeFX-mr shader didn’t render if system unit was changed.
+ ADDED: FumeFX-mr shader – Illumination Map and Multiple Scattering are new multithreaded.
+ ADDED: FumeFX-mr shader – Support for Illumination Map load/save .
+ ADDED: Field3D zip compression option (Preferences).
+ FIXED: Field3D caches were not working for the initial state simulation.
+ ADDED: Simulation status info can be accessed by the Deadline software.

Login to your account for the latest. :-)

maxster
10-22-2013, 06:39 AM
I just saw this big fumefx thread. I posted the same question yesterday outside this thread. But it failed to garner enough view to make any attention :) So posting it here.
I am working on a rotor wash effect. Simulation of dust has been already done using "pfsource" and "fumefx". By the way i am using 3ds max 2011. Is there any way to slowdown both. i am looking for a slow motion scene , Ultra slow motion would be great(Rotor will be rotating slowly enough to make it an ultra slow motion scene). Please anyone tell me how to execute it without any jerks and shakes in animation.

Please advice.

Glacierise
10-22-2013, 09:36 AM
Stoke/Krakatoa ;)

SandeepMaithani
10-22-2013, 12:06 PM
I need my fire to burn for at least 5 secs but no matter what i do, its dies down before 2 secs..
I've tried lowering the burn rate, adjusting temperature (obj/src tab) and ignition temp(sim tab) values.
I'm using an object amitter.
Is it really tricky or am i missing something?

Thanks
Sandeep

maxster
10-23-2013, 08:32 AM
Please somebody answer, i am here with much hope to solve the Slow motion stuffs.

Glacierise
10-23-2013, 12:17 PM
Try caching it to a Krakatoa PRT, then load the cache in a PRT loader - it has nice retiming controls.

maxster
10-23-2013, 01:34 PM
I don't know how to do it, I never used Krakatoa.

Glacierise
10-23-2013, 01:41 PM
You can do retimes in FFX, but to a limited degree. For extreme stuff - you might wanna take a look at Krakatoa.

maxster
10-23-2013, 01:46 PM
I posted the same outside this thread a couple of days ago. And @d4rk3lf (http://forums.cgsociety.org/member.php?u=225713) replied :
"For FumeFX, try reducing "time scale" option (in the simulation roolout) from 1.0 , to something like: 0,2?
You can even animate that parameter.

The only problem is that render sometimes becomes too jitter, so I'll use your thread to ask anyone for advice on that matter."

So we are waiting for any response there.
Any advice ?

tamagochy
11-01-2013, 02:52 PM
I made sim of the cloud. I use obj source with volume option. When i try re-time it in post proc, its delete volume voxels. How can i disable this?

abc001101
11-07-2013, 07:03 PM
Hi,

I am a new user of using Maya FumeFX and krakatoa.
As I know, Krakatoa is only support for rendering praticle. May I know how to convert the fluid from FumeFX to particle in maya?(my goal is emitting smoke on a object)
I also know there is a tool called"PF Source" in 3DS MAX. The function of this tool is to convert the fluids to praticles. Any similar tools in maya?

Thanks so much for you time.

Best,
Man

SandeepMaithani
11-07-2013, 07:29 PM
hi friends
pls look at the attachment.........Somehow i'm not able to figure out how to blend fire with smoke nicely.............i've tried playing with AFC, opacity, hi res sims, changing system scale...
pls if you know how to fix this , pls do let me know..

Thanks
Sandeep

Bobo
11-08-2013, 12:19 AM
Hi,

I am a new user of using Maya FumeFX and krakatoa.
As I know, Krakatoa is only support for rendering praticle. May I know how to convert the fluid from FumeFX to particle in maya?(my goal is emitting smoke on a object)
I also know there is a tool called"PF Source" in 3DS MAX. The function of this tool is to convert the fluids to praticles. Any similar tools in maya?

Thanks so much for you time.

Best,
Man

FumeFX for Maya comes with its own dedicated Particle operators which can be used to birth and advect Maya particles based on the FumeFX simulation. This is the equivalent of using PF Source (which is actually the source of Particle Flow, the Max event-driven particles) with FumeFX Follow (an operator for Particle Flow that advects particles using the FumeFX velocities).
http://www.afterworks.com/FumeFX_Maya/ParticleOps.asp?ID=9

So the approach is similar, and Krakatoa MY can render the FumeFX-driven Particles like any other Maya Particles.

Hope this helps.

abc001101
11-11-2013, 06:13 PM
FumeFX for Maya comes with its own dedicated Particle operators which can be used to birth and advect Maya particles based on the FumeFX simulation. This is the equivalent of using PF Source (which is actually the source of Particle Flow, the Max event-driven particles) with FumeFX Follow (an operator for Particle Flow that advects particles using the FumeFX velocities).
http://www.afterworks.com/FumeFX_Maya/ParticleOps.asp?ID=9

So the approach is similar, and Krakatoa MY can render the FumeFX-driven Particles like any other Maya Particles.

Hope this helps.

Thanks so much for your useful reply, is really awesome!

Now, I know the concept of fumeFX particles between max and maya. However, could you mind to tell me the basic steps? I cannot find any tutorials or information about these steps!

Thanks a lot!

DanFX
11-11-2013, 11:23 PM
thanks for the reply.

I did actually try something similar to that but I couldn't get the flames to propagate through the entire fume volume. they just stayed by the temperature source.

Are you animating the temperature source across the fuel or is it just staying where it is and the fuel is catching fire as the voxels near them rise in temperature?

thanks,

V Miller

Generally what I do is bump my temperature diffusion up. and the ignition temperature down. The diffusion will cause heat to radiate farther from a heat source, and the fuel will have a lower ignition temp, so the fire propagates through your fuel quickly.

-Dan

abc001101
11-13-2013, 03:55 PM
Hi,

Another question for FumeFX simulation in maya.

After the testing, I found that the particles didn't follow the fumeFX simulation.

My goal is emitting smoke on an object. So, here is my step.

Create FumeFX node>create a particle source in fumeFx>select my object and assign " emit from object" in maya >select the emitter and assign to the particle source.

After that, I changed the parameters in the fume fx node but nothing happen. It seem like FumeFX simulation doesn't affect the particle. Am I did something wrong?

Please help me, I'm a very beginner in fumeFX for maya. I can't find any tutorials on the Internet.

Thanks so much

Best,
Man.

Mills
11-14-2013, 03:02 PM
What am i doing wrong here? Any advice would be much appreciated.
reference:)
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_FYHgXnWXuw/TmrB8ar7L4I/AAAAAAAABK4/VdLKSBqf0eY/s1600/building-demolition.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ee/Woodwards_building_Vancouver_demolition_2.jpg

Mine:(
http://www.algorythmrecordings.com/500mills/fume/no_wavelett.jpg
http://www.algorythmrecordings.com/500mills/fume/scale.JPG
http://www.algorythmrecordings.com/500mills/fume/Untitled-1.jpg

scene file (http://www.algorythmrecordings.com/500mills/fume/test_no_geo.max)

Glacierise
11-14-2013, 03:11 PM
The balls of terror, the number one enemy of the fluid artist! Instead of emitting smoke, try emitting fuel, set it on fire, then use 'fire creates smoke'. Emit from particles that grow then shrink over age, many particles with small radius. Basically you want to give the solver some time so it can make good complex shapes from your simple sources. And unfortunately, you'll need high resolution. You'll need many grids for this effect.

Daniel-B
11-14-2013, 07:58 PM
Although it would take a while, one thing you could do is pre-roll the Fume container for about 20-25 frames of turbulence, to stir up the air in the container. You would have to turn Adaptive off for this to work. Then when you sim, you won't get "balls of terror" or "mushrooms" because your smoke will have turbulent air velocities to run into.

Another thing you could do is use an Effector to add turbulence any place there is Smoke.

Daniel-B
11-17-2013, 09:46 PM
I have a question about some smoke movement. I have a regular fire and smoke column like in the image below. The animation is 720 frames long, and I am using wind to move it sideways. However, if I use a wind force, the costant pressure makes the smoke blow more and more horizontal over the course of the animation. I want it to stay at a 70 ish vertical angle. How can I keep it at the same relative angle without it changing during the animation?

http://www.pinedaleonline.com/news/2011/12/scr-enterprise8JF.jpg

kogden
11-17-2013, 10:01 PM
Hacky as hell, and faster then wind... but a gravity vector pointed in the direction want it...

... You could also try animating you wind to phase up and down in strength, but that could take a little testing to get right...

Kieran

Daniel-B
11-17-2013, 10:23 PM
Hacky as hell, and faster then wind... but a gravity vector pointed in the direction want it...

... You could also try animating you wind to phase up and down in strength, but that could take a little testing to get right...

Kieran

I tried the gravity vector, because it can work nice with explosion plumes, but for smoke columns, it creates straight line of smoke which looks weird.

Using wind tears the smoke column apart in a pleasing way, probably because the upward motion of the smoke is fighting the horizontal motion of the wind. I am currently testing keyframing the wind strength, but that's not a very reliable means of control I'm afraid.

alexhalstead
11-17-2013, 11:06 PM
To counteract the straightness of the gravity vector, In the past I've used either a simple source or some particles to emit extra velocity into the grid pointing in the opposite direction. That way, you'll get a bit of an arc in your smoke and at the very least some randomization in the shape. Mixing that with some animated wind and you should be golden! :thumbsup:

Daniel-B
11-18-2013, 04:00 AM
So I found an interesting solution to this smoke problem. If you turn adaptive off, and let the wind fill the container with velocities from the first frame it seems to stay steady.

For some reason, with adaptive on, as the adaptive grid gets larger and larger, the wind effect seems to accelerate pushing the smoke more and more horizontal. However, with adaptive off, the smoke stays at relatively the same angle through all 700 frames. Yes it takes a bit longer to sim, but it sure looks nice.

Daniel-B
11-18-2013, 03:51 PM
If you fine folks would lend me your minds again. How do I reflect FumeFX in the floor if I am only using Scanline renderer? I cannot use Mental Ray to do it because the farm will not render Fume with mental ray, only scanline. I tried using a Raytrace material and a Matte/Shadow material, and I cannot get it to work. Any suggestions?

EDIT: Nevermind, I realized it was because my Raytrace Materaial reflection color was black instead of white. Wow, what a rookie mistake...ha. Pay no attention to my stupid question!

Glacierise
11-18-2013, 04:13 PM
Interesting find, about that wind with the adaptive off.

Daniel-B
11-18-2013, 04:48 PM
Interesting find, about that wind with the adaptive off.

Yeah. In my opinion, it's the way to go for smoke columns billowing in the wind. It will take a while longer, but if you optimize everything else, it gives a nice result. And if you are not doing pyroclastic volcano-like smoke, you don't need insanely high grids anyway.

circusboy
11-18-2013, 07:41 PM
Hi,

Another question for FumeFX simulation in maya.

After the testing, I found that the particles didn't follow the fumeFX simulation.

My goal is emitting smoke on an object. So, here is my step.

Create FumeFX node>create a particle source in fumeFx>select my object and assign " emit from object" in maya >select the emitter and assign to the particle source.

After that, I changed the parameters in the fume fx node but nothing happen. It seem like FumeFX simulation doesn't affect the particle. Am I did something wrong?

I'm not new to FumeFX. But I am new the FumeFX on Maya (and Linux in my case).
From your step-by-step you did the procedures for using a particle source and the object source.
Not the 'follow' that Bobo mentions (if you follow his link).

It seems to be under FumeFX>Particle Operators>FumeFX Follow Field.
Sorry this is as far as i can take you as I've not had time the try this yet.

circusboy
11-18-2013, 07:47 PM
has anyone come across the problem that an object w/ mr matte/shadow/reflection shader will not recieve any shadows on areas that are inside a fumefx container?

http://i1270.photobucket.com/albums/jj608/procanic/ffx_shadow_test_01_small_marked.jpg


(spotlight w/ raytraced shadows, autovolume on, ffx cast/recieve shadows on, atmosphere shadows on. standard mat recieves shadows just fine, the mr matte shader only on areas outside the grid.)

am i missing something or is the mr matte/shadow/refl really not 100% compatible w/ fumefx?

my fix for now would be rendering the ground shadow pass w/ scanline, so any suggestion on how i could fix the shadow using mr is most appreciated.
Did you ever solve this? I know it back a few pages-my first thought is since you are using mr is make sure you've got 'Use Maya Volume Sampling' on.
I'm stuck with mr for Maya Linux FFX and this is the kinda limitations you get without this being true. Its slower to render-but pretty necessary.

I just caught up to this thread (after a year away).

TheManual
11-19-2013, 11:29 PM
I have a question about some smoke movement.


As you discovered you always need to preload the grid to get consistency with your desired velocity, same goes for temp too. Adaptive is exactly that adaptive, if there is no fluid it cuts everything else out.

I think you can get better more interesting control by using an object source then mapping velocity with a greyscale map to a custom piece of geometry. Just a thought :)

feldy
11-20-2013, 04:34 PM
Does anyone know if there is a way to save out velocities from fumefx into some type of 3d grid with values?

This way we can pump those values into a game engine to control particles and what not. I'm able to sim it just fine. But I can't seem to get render elements to to render it out like it looks in the viewport. Nor can I see a way of exporting it to a file format.

Any ideas.

JohnnyRandom
11-20-2013, 05:08 PM
You could try turning off adaptive try to save out just velocities to .f3d

feldy
11-20-2013, 06:24 PM
You could try turning off adaptive try to save out just velocities to .f3d

Johnny how would you go about doing that? My fume knowledge is rather old. 2009 I'm currently getting caught up in the new features now. First time I have not been in production since 2006 so I have some learning to do.

JohnnyRandom
11-20-2013, 06:40 PM
Here is a super simple example with only velocity export and a wind spacewarp. I unfortunately do not have my Stoke license with me and cannot test the .f3d field data. The caches appear to be saving velocity, or data of some sort, I just can't verify it until I can load it into Stoke.

I have added a few things to the wish list in regards to this. Such as being able to use custom mapping for the turbulence field within Fume and being able to export that field. As is it seems you can only export fields created by other velocity sources. I have been meaning to look into this further.

feldy
11-20-2013, 06:57 PM
Gotcha now I see. all you have do it sim it as a f3d file. not a fxd file. Now my question is who owns that file format or if there is any documentation on it. What I want to do it take that cashed data and pump it into a 3d texture if you will.


Here is a super simple example with only velocity export and a wind spacewarp. I unfortunately do not have my Stoke license with me and cannot test the .f3d field data. The caches appear to be saving velocity, or data of some sort, I just can't verify it until I can load it into Stoke.

I have added a few things to the wish list in regards to this. Such as being able to use custom mapping for the turbulence field within Fume and being able to export that field. As is it seems you can only export fields created by other velocity sources. I have been meaning to look into this further.