PDA

View Full Version : Car Dust


royter
10-11-2010, 10:58 PM
any general guidelines on how to obtain that dust effect with fluids?
http://www.vistawallpaper.org/vista-wallpapers/impreza-wrc.jpg

stooch
10-11-2010, 11:59 PM
emit particles that inherit the cars motion and then emit fluids out of particles.

Aikiman
10-12-2010, 01:47 AM
I wouldnt even use particles, just lots of carefully placed volume axis fields and turn the car into a velocity emitter.

royter
10-12-2010, 09:02 AM
emit particles that inherit the cars motion
-does this differ from just attaching a fluid emitter to the car?

-this is what i have so far: movie (http://sor.typepad.com/files/cardustmovie26.rar) (right click save as). Any guidelines on how to make it more convincing?

-the fluid is not being motion blurred even with high values and when the simulation is cashed, any ideas?

ZeitG
10-12-2010, 07:07 PM
1. differences have:
if you simply connect the emitter to the object, then the particles will be born and remain in place, if you include "inherit", then the particle will be some time follow the emitter.

p.s.: for fluids "inherit" use "motion field"

2. you have a buoyancy, but no directional movement, i.e. the fluids simply rise up and that's all, it's wrong. use the "fields" to give realistic simulations, and make fewer buoyancy.

p.s.: the best way is use density and temperature emission. temperature buoyancy - positive. density buoyancy - negative. because the dust is still heavier than air. (IMHO)

3. motion blur can be applied in post processing

good luck.

royter
10-12-2010, 07:48 PM
1. differences have:
if you simply connect the emitter to the object, then the particles will be born and remain in place, if you include "inherit", then the particle will be some time follow the emitter.

p.s.: for fluids "inherit" use "motion field"

2. you have a buoyancy, but no directional movement, i.e. the fluids simply rise up and that's all, it's wrong. use the "fields" to give realistic simulations, and make fewer buoyancy.

p.s.: the best way is use density and temperature emission. temperature buoyancy - positive. density buoyancy - negative. because the dust is still heavier than air. (IMHO)

3. motion blur can be applied in post processing

good luck.

Mik , impressive work, i am trying to apply your tips.
meanwhile i am trying to have a look similar to your TrailV2, do you mind sharing your method?

ZeitG
10-12-2010, 08:09 PM
why not...

p.s.: nothing fancy

Aikiman
10-12-2010, 11:51 PM
Just had a play..

http://www.jeremyraven.co.nz/images/carDust.mp4

stooch
10-13-2010, 12:14 AM
-does this differ from just attaching a fluid emitter to the car?

-this is what i have so far: movie (http://sor.typepad.com/files/cardustmovie26.rar) (right click save as). Any guidelines on how to make it more convincing?

-the fluid is not being motion blurred even with high values and when the simulation is cashed, any ideas?
yes. the fluid solver is too buoyant. if you inherit velocity from particles you will get a more realistic result. otherwise it will just billow in a vertical fashion. i guess you could use it but to me it wouldnt look realistic. if you look at a rally car as it spits out dust, you will see that there is a highly directional aspect to it.

royter
10-13-2010, 08:42 AM
why not...

p.s.: nothing fancy
thanks alot man, you have been a great help.

here's where i got so far: movie (http://sor.typepad.com/files/cardust44.rar)
half poly cylinder = emitter = motion field = parent of a volume axis field.

yes. the fluid solver is too buoyant. if you inherit velocity from particles you will get a more realistic result. otherwise it will just billow in a vertical fashion. i guess you could use it but to me it wouldnt look realistic. if you look at a rally car as it spits out dust, you will see that there is a highly directional aspect to it.
Dimitri does your particle method give better results then my last movie?

Aikiman
10-14-2010, 01:18 AM
I think you need a stronger volume axis field.
You need to think about where the forces are coming from in real life. Most of the dust is being pushed by the car tyres as it grips the road around the bend, based on your photo resource. So your axis field ought to be driven from this point. Also the motion of the car will create a vacuum behind it sucking the dust in towards it hence the reason for the motion field parented to the vehicle. A combination of these fields working together with the correct magnitude and bouyency of the fluid should get some decent results.

royter
10-14-2010, 02:24 AM
I think you need a stronger volume axis field.
You need to think about where the forces are coming from in real life. Most of the dust is being pushed by the car tyres as it grips the road around the bend, based on your photo resource. So your axis field ought to be driven from this point. Also the motion of the car will create a vacuum behind it sucking the dust in towards it hence the reason for the motion field parented to the vehicle. A combination of these fields working together with the correct magnitude and bouyency of the fluid should get some decent results.

ok, here is the scene (http://sor.typepad.com/files/cardust44.mb).
could you illustrate your method?

Aikiman
10-14-2010, 02:35 AM
Im using 2008, scene doesnt appear to have loaded properly. Have a look at the movie I uploaded, I just tweaked it a little and uploaded a newer version a couple of posts back.

The volume axis field has an 'around axis' attribute also that can twist your fluid vectors creating more interesting patterns, its just a matter of getting the magnitude right and timing.
I cant really see any use for particles it would just make th effect more complicated than it needs to be unless you want to add flying debris.

stooch
10-14-2010, 06:17 AM
Dimitri does your particle method give better results then my last movie?

yep. you can clearly see the lack of directionality, and how the smoke just kind of does its thing instead of inheriting the velocity of the emitter.

Also you want to simulate jets of dust shooting from under the wheels, and those have their own directional vectors, things taht you can previs with particles (which are much easier to manage and control than fluids).

ZeitG
10-14-2010, 09:12 AM
the trick is that you should be about 6 fluid emitters and 5 fields.
on the emitter on each wheel, one on the bottom of the car and one behind some sort of common cars. as well as in life.
the main thing here is not to overdo it with the total density of fluids.

Fields should be at each wheel, and again the total light field behind the car. motion field should be across the body, even a little longer.

important point is the vehicle animation itself (its movement and rotation) and, accordingly, the direction of the fields for the emission of dust.

This effect is quite complicated and one should not think that it is possible to realize handsomely for one or 2 days (IMHO). More tests with different settings.

stooch
10-14-2010, 04:47 PM
the effect is much simpler if you follow the particle emission advice. because you get realtime feedback of what the particles are doing, while with fluids yuo have to wait to simulate, especially at higher res. Also, while billowing and fluid noises add some really interesting detail to the fluids, they also fight with the directionality of fluids, so you can spend alot of time tweaking that or just emit the velocity position and density out of particles using a soup node or duncans example waterfall scene.

Aikiman
10-14-2010, 07:34 PM
the effect is much simpler if you follow the particle emission advice. because you get realtime feedback of what the particles are doing, while with fluids yuo have to wait to simulate, especially at higher res. Also, while billowing and fluid noises add some really interesting detail to the fluids, they also fight with the directionality of fluids, so you can spend alot of time tweaking that or just emit the velocity position and density out of particles using a soup node or duncans example waterfall scene.

Depends on what you are comfortable with will determine your workflow in the end and time constraints also. I can normally pull off a high resolutiuon fluid sim over 2-3 playblasts/tweaks and a render then the final render - job done in a morning depending.

But I agree on the instant feedback from particles this could help you visualise your effect but I cant see it really taking much time off ones simulation - you still have to use a fluid to drive velocity and calculate density and temperature grids.

royter
10-14-2010, 11:24 PM
still working on the fluid method and doing lots of tests.
i am runing into a little problem, i have car running 50 KM/hour, the wheels are moving relatively fast wich is causing a gap behind the wheel.
i tried increasing the emitter emission rate - density/voxel/second - solver quality - turning motion streak on - , i still see the gap.
the only thing that worked is slowing down the car but thats not an options, how can i solve this problem so the fluid is emitted directly behind while using high speeds?

Aikiman
10-15-2010, 12:18 AM
Yeah its the solver steps you need to adjust. I cant rmember if there is anything on the fluidShape itself but if you go to cache settings you'll see the sample rate option somewhere there. Lowering this to .2 for example will sample the fluid 5 times per frame. I believe it works this way, could be wrong.

royter
10-15-2010, 12:45 AM
Yeah its the solver steps you need to adjust. I cant rmember if there is anything on the fluidShape itself but if you go to cache settings you'll see the sample rate option somewhere there. Lowering this to .2 for example will sample the fluid 5 times per frame. I believe it works this way, could be wrong.

Ok this fixed my gap problem (evaluate every 0.25) but the fluid became blurry and more stiffer?

Aikiman
10-15-2010, 01:01 AM
Ok this fixed my gap problem (evaluate every 0.25) but the fluid became blurry and more stiffer?

mmm you might want to lower any diffusion values on density and temperature and increase the velocity if by "stiffer" you mean less movement. Subsampling will affect your sim slightly so you need to make adjustments to perimeters.

royter
10-15-2010, 01:42 AM
mmm you might want to lower any diffusion values on density and temperature and increase the velocity if by "stiffer" you mean less movement. Subsampling will affect your sim slightly so you need to make adjustments to perimeters.


there a huge difference between the 2 simulations: evaluate every 0.1 vs evaluate every 1.
I would even say that this is the first thing you do when working with fluids.
That said here is my latest car dust fluid test combining: emitter/motion field/volume axis field.
Is this close to the best result i can get using fluid only?

Dimitri, will try in the next step the particle method by following Duncan's tutorial.

ZeitG
10-15-2010, 09:07 AM
yes, will be the difference between the simulations.

because all the settings are not fluid in a second, but proschitany step. that is, if you have to frame 1 is 4 iterations, while the diffusion, buoyancy, dissipation, damp and others will behave in a 4 times faster. only on that does not affect the number of iterations is at Velocity (maybe I'm wrong, but I noticed this was not).

that each test is not cached, you can fill up the "settings/preferences" "preferences" in the section "time-slider" - "playback by" another step. will help save space and so you can fine-tune the required number of iterations.
_______________________________

cache for the render you can so: (for example)
in nCache:
evaluate every "0.1" Frame
Save every "5" evaluation
_______________________________
then on the frame you will have 2 of the evolution of fluids
this is enough to eliminate virtually any gap

royter
10-15-2010, 11:27 PM
the effect is much simpler if you follow the particle emission advice. because you get realtime feedback of what the particles are doing, while with fluids yuo have to wait to simulate, especially at higher res. Also, while billowing and fluid noises add some really interesting detail to the fluids, they also fight with the directionality of fluids, so you can spend alot of time tweaking that or just emit the velocity position and density out of particles using a soup node or duncans example waterfall scene.
will this method fix my gap problem without having to use evaluate every "0.1" ?







that each test is not cached, you can fill up the "settings/preferences" "preferences" in the section "time-slider" - "playback by" another step. will help save space and so you can fine-tune the required number of iterations.

Sorry but i dont see what you mean here.


cache for the render you can so: (for example)
in nCache:
evaluate every "0.1" Frame
Save every "5" evaluation
_______________________________
then on the frame you will have 2 of the evolution of fluids
this is enough to eliminate virtually any gap

if i get it right when rendering at 30fps, you need to have 1 state of the fluid for each frame so if evaluate every "0.1" you should put Save every "10" evaluation so that in each frame you have 10 evaluations but it only saves the last one (beacause you dont need more than 1 per frame) right?



with evaluate every "0.1" Frame, caching takes forever....Is there another way to eliminate gaps for fast moving emitters?

ZeitG
10-16-2010, 12:29 PM
will this method fix my gap problem without having to use evaluate every "0.1" ?

yes, because you'll have a lot of emitters, rather than one. each particle will be fluid emitter, but if you move too fast, it will not help.

Sorry but i dont see what you mean here.

This is set in general settings of Maya


if i get it right when rendering at 30fps, you need to have 1 state of the fluid for each frame so if evaluate every "0.1" you should put Save every "10" evaluation so that in each frame you have 10 evaluations but it only saves the last one (beacause you dont need more than 1 per frame) right?

Yeah, right. I just installed 0.5 which gives me 2 iterations of the frame and playback in real time is a smoother, but longer.

with evaluate every "0.1" Frame, caching takes forever....Is there another way to eliminate gaps for fast moving emitters?

Not sure but I think not.

stooch
10-16-2010, 03:14 PM
Depends on what you are comfortable with will determine your workflow in the end and time constraints also. I can normally pull off a high resolutiuon fluid sim over 2-3 playblasts/tweaks and a render then the final render - job done in a morning depending.



thats a nice little pat on your back eh? im guessing that if the OP could do the same, he wouldn't be posting for help...

anyway, the results of emitting from particles looks quite different to one that is pure fluids. take a look at duncans waterfall example, so its not really all about ease of workflow, there is a function that the particles serve in addition to feedback.

Aikiman
10-16-2010, 07:37 PM
thats a nice little pat on your back eh? im guessing that if the OP could do the same, he wouldn't be posting for help...

anyway, the results of emitting from particles looks quite different to one that is pure fluids. take a look at duncans waterfall example, so its not really all about ease of workflow, there is a function that the particles serve in addition to feedback.

Im editing my post becuse I feel Im coming off arrogant.

What Id like to say is I wouldnt use particles here. Sure they have their use but in this case I think they would just get in the way. However I can see them working if they were emitted in a forward direction from the back wheel as it skidded around the bend, tossing dust in front of the car but thats it.

stooch
10-16-2010, 08:52 PM
i would use particles because you can have cheap collision detection with them too, and they also generate more interesting detail at lower resolution.

ZeitG
10-16-2010, 09:37 PM
if use fluidshader method, for more interesting details, they look rather rough.

but ... that we would like to clarify.
there are ways more quickly or better.
here than in the case, the man asked "how to create something like that?", he replied that there are a few ways. I think the debate whose version is better is not necessary. He did try and understand that it for this particular situation is more suitable.

stooch
10-17-2010, 01:12 AM
there is no debate here.

also you do not highlight text on a dark gray background by making it black. its just not a good idea. :beer:

royter
10-17-2010, 07:37 AM
i think we are derailing from the main focus here.
i must say that the particle method gives more directionality to the fluid than motion field.
But this method doesn't replace the fluid method its just an additional step wich gives you a real time feedback (if you hide your fluid container).

Now both those methods didn't solve the fast moving emitter issue. And thats a big problem because you cant work with 0.1 iterations, its too slow even on a hexacore. machine. And lets face it, in a production situation, you always deal with fast moving emitters (vehicles,rockets,debris...) so how could you can produce a series of shots ( a desert race for exemple) when you have to choose evaluate every "0.1" Frame to avoid weird gaps behind the emitter,and spend 5 days just testing and simulating, in that case my producer will definitively shoot himself.

stooch
10-17-2010, 06:43 PM
i think we are derailing from the main focus here.
i must say that the particle method gives more directionality to the fluid than motion field.
But this method doesn't replace the fluid method its just an additional step wich gives you a real time feedback (if you hide your fluid container).

Now both those methods didn't solve the fast moving emitter issue. And thats a big problem because you cant work with 0.1 iterations, its too slow even on a hexacore. machine. And lets face it, in a production situation, you always deal with fast moving emitters (vehicles,rockets,debris...) so how could you can produce a series of shots ( a desert race for exemple) when you have to choose evaluate every "0.1" Frame to avoid weird gaps behind the emitter,and spend 5 days just testing and simulating, in that case my producer will definitively shoot himself.

Of course its used in addition to fluids lol, i think that was pretty clear. I am assuming that you played with the fluid scale and speed scale values?

I have gotten extremely fast movement with fluids before, i dont see how you can be exceeding the speeds i have simmed before (car tires would be pedestrian in comparison). Are you adjusting your frame step btw? because i often have to reduce my playback frame step to something like .25 and then when i write cache i save every 4th evaluation. its pretty fast and helps me simulate super fast motions. Might even want to try with a .5 first.

Anyway, it may be worth just using a straight particle approach. there are even expression methods to interpolate particles in empty gaps of a fast moving emitter without cranking your emission rate. might even want to use particles with a very short life span and a cloud shader, to fill in the gaps left in the fluid and comp them, letting fluids take over where you actually want fluid behavior... at the later stages of the dust billow..

royter
10-17-2010, 10:13 PM
I have gotten extremely fast movement with fluids before, i dont see how you can be exceeding the speeds i have simmed before (car tires would be pedestrian in comparison). Are you adjusting your frame step btw? because i often have to reduce my playback frame step to something like .25 and then when i write cache i save every 4th evaluation. its pretty fast and helps me simulate super fast motions. Might even want to try with a .5 first.
.

tried it, didnt work. Here is the file (http://www.youfile.net/download.php?file=13ca4430396dde09ecb866a80e53338f) if you want to have a look .

stooch
10-17-2010, 10:45 PM
FastEmitterGapFixed.mb (www.stooch.net/outgoing/FastEmitterGapFixed.mb)

Here you go. The problem is caused by the particles, not the fluid, one (simple) solution was to add a fluid emitter to your wheel and emit into fluid and change the playback rate to .25 so that there is enough sub frame samples for the fluid emitter to contribute to your particles.

Note, that if you were to cache this fluid, you would want to save every 4th frame, in order to have realtime cache speed (and a quarter of the cache size).


Another solution would be to write a simple script that will add to the position of the particle at birth using the wheels world movement vector, this way you can offset the particles forward so that they are overlapping the wheel. This will eliminate the need for sub frame samples and for the fluid emitter.

royter
10-18-2010, 06:09 AM
FastEmitterGapFixed.mb (http://www.stooch.net/outgoing/FastEmitterGapFixed.mb)

Here you go. The problem is caused by the particles, not the fluid, one (simple) solution was to add a fluid emitter to your wheel and emit into fluid and change the playback rate to .25 so that there is enough sub frame samples for the fluid emitter to contribute to your particles.

Note, that if you were to cache this fluid, you would want to save every 4th frame, in order to have realtime cache speed (and a quarter of the cache size).

.

First of all thank for fixing the scene.


as for setting "playback by: 0.25" you mean that i should set the oversampling on the particle cash options to 4, and thats cool because i see a big difference in the particle motion here (no gap :)). But when i set "playback by" back to 1 so i can see the final result, the particles disappear.

HowardM
10-18-2010, 02:32 PM
no, he means in your prefs set the playback to .25.. which will sim 0, .25, .5, .75, 1, etc... which is just faking subsampling...

royter
10-23-2010, 01:13 AM
3. motion blur can be applied in post processing
.

How do you do that? moving fluids within a container cant export motion vectors?
what are your ways for motion blurring fluids since MR sees the whole container as a static box ?

ZeitG
10-23-2010, 03:23 PM
look this topic (http://forums.cgsociety.org/archive/index.php/t-814706.html)

royter
10-23-2010, 08:52 PM
look this topic (http://forums.cgsociety.org/archive/index.php/t-814706.html)

the mel isn't there so i guess the most practical solution is to blur via a plugin like the nuke plugin witch doesnt require motion vectors but does it on a frame by frame basis.Hope there is an after effect equivalent.

stooch
10-24-2010, 04:51 AM
yes. its called time warp.

just add time warp, set its speed ratio to 1 and then enable per pixel motion blur.

I vaguely remember a hack to get motion vectors out of fluids though. I thought they had them by now actually.

royter
10-25-2010, 07:00 AM
yes. its called time warp.

just add time warp, set its speed ratio to 1 and then enable per pixel motion blur.

I vaguely remember a hack to get motion vectors out of fluids though. I thought they had them by now actually.

good to know that, but after research couldn't find a link to that product.
i will try it as soon as i have it. Besides that i am running into a real rendering problem with my fluid:
i have a cached fluid simulation (100 resolution-1 big cache file) and MR4MAYA is batch rendering the first 20 frames relatively fast but the more the renderer is going through the frames the slower it gets to render the fluid and its getting really,really slow , any ideas?

stooch
10-25-2010, 07:08 AM
time warp comes installed with AE. its in the effects, time menu.


as far as your rendering problem, the fact that it slowing down gradually tells me that something is increasing in complexity, sounds like your render settings are a bit overkill for fluids. I tend to render them with bare necessities, you dont need much AA or lights for them. Fluids generally render very fast unless you try to do some crazy volume shadows with multiple lights etc

royter
10-25-2010, 07:45 AM
as far as your rendering problem, the fact that it slowing down gradually tells me that something is increasing in complexity, sounds like your render settings are a bit overkill for fluids. I tend to render them with bare necessities, you dont need much AA or lights for them. Fluids generally render very fast unless you try to do some crazy volume shadows with multiple lights etc

my render settings are pretty low (AA and sampling).
i dont know if its the combination: turbulence field + big container that's causing the problem.
here is the scene (http://www.youfile.net/download.php?file=72c49fa80efff98e2e5ec2f3d46a65d5), just try to batch render from 140 to170 and you will see the problem

royter
10-27-2010, 11:53 PM
Ok, it was the dissipation.
but i am running through 2 other problems:
my fluid simulation freezes at frame 162 and have no idea why?
when i try to batch render my cached fluid disapears, any ideas?

royter
11-03-2010, 10:59 AM
yes. its called time warp.

just add time warp, set its speed ratio to 1 and then enable per pixel motion blur.
.

when i set the speed to 1, the moving object stays fixed in 1 place. i have to set it up to 100 but then the effect is too strong.

stooch
11-03-2010, 03:33 PM
when i set the speed to 1, the moving object stays fixed in 1 place. i have to set it up to 100 but then the effect is too strong.

my bad it goes from 0-100, by default its at 50 which is half speed. so set it to a 100 for a ratio of 1:1.

blur length is controlled by the shutter angle.

seriously though all this is in the timewarp section in the help docs, you are requiring a bit too much hand holding right now.

royter
11-03-2010, 07:54 PM
my bad it goes from 0-100, by default its at 50 which is half speed. so set it to a 100 for a ratio of 1:1.

blur length is controlled by the shutter angle.

seriously though all this is in the timewarp section in the help docs, you are requiring a bit too much hand holding right now.

ok i will check it out in detail.
i am overwhelmed with alot of technical issues right now.and thats why i am trying to find fast help where i can.
thanks anyways.

royter
12-20-2010, 05:48 AM
i thank you all for your precious help.
here is my finished work: http://vimeo.com/17995931

Aikiman
12-20-2010, 05:53 AM
congrats, nice work!

stooch
12-20-2010, 07:09 AM
i thank you all for your precious help.
here is my finished work: http://vimeo.com/17995931


great job...

some comments.

first of all the tunnel shot, would be far more interesting if you stretched it out and really made the car go fast through it and motion blur it... it would look far more dynamic.

also you made the dust fall off a little early in the shot with the skid. i think it would be cool if you let it dwell and be almost opaque and slowly settle down. etc

good lighting though. overally pretty high production value.

p.s. what i also like seeing is the action of the suspension as the car flies over imperfections and unevenness in the road.. with secondary motion from the body as it absorbs bumps... it really adds alot of dynamism and interest to the animation of the car.

royter
12-20-2010, 07:24 AM
great job...

some comments.

first of all the tunnel shot, would be far more interesting if you stretched it out and really made the car go fast through it and motion blur it... it would look far more dynamic.

also you made the dust fall off a little early in the shot with the skid. i think it would be cool if you let it dwell and be almost opaque and slowly settle down. etc

good lighting though. overally pretty high production value.

thanks alot Dimitri

p.s. what i also like seeing is the action of the suspension as the car flies over imperfections and unevenness in the road.. it really adds alot of dynamism and interest to the animation of the car.

Thanks alot Dimitri
as i said this is more an animation exercise then a real production.The whole picture is clean but not perfect,but gave me a good idea on what works and what doesn't for my future projects.

I agree with the tunnel shot comment, the problem with fast motion blur is the wheels, with a value higher than 0.5 (3d motion blur in maya) they begin to shrink, and as far as i know post blur handles badly rotating objects.

Regarding the dust, i agree but i preferred a transparent elegant effect because that was my first fluid try in a production. the problem were:
-i had no choice but to simulate at 0.125 (playback by) so the dust could directly from the fast spinning wheel ( not after a meter or two) but this method is so unpractical.
-the simulation was so slow because i had to set dissipation to 0.5 ( in order to leave a trail), and this slows down the simulation dramaticly and give you huge cash files.


p.s. what i also like seeing is the action of the suspension as the car flies over imperfections and unevenness in the road.. with secondary motion from the body as it absorbs bumps... it really adds alot of dynamism and interest to the animation of the car.
i had the suspension bump effect/noise first, the movement was really cool but it gave weird results with wheels+motion blur, so compromise...

stooch
12-20-2010, 07:09 PM
Thanks alot Dimitri

I agree with the tunnel shot comment, the problem with fast motion blur is the wheels, with a value higher than 0.5 (3d motion blur in maya) they begin to shrink, and as far as i know post blur handles badly rotating objects..

to avoid that problem i would render bg as a separate pass..

also to properly render rotating objects you have to increase motion samples or use 3d motion blur. you could just render the wheels by themselves to save render time and comp em in.

good work though :)

Aikiman
12-20-2010, 07:36 PM
Agreed, more emphasis could have been placed on speed and beef up the fluid dust a little for impact. I enjoyed the edits and camera moves.

coccosoids
12-20-2010, 11:10 PM
Take the fluid pass, duplicate it 3, 4 times and smack it on top of your comp...
Because that's not what dust looks like. Way to thin, way too transparent...

riction
03-16-2011, 10:59 AM
this is my try out of the car dust effect

http://www.vimeo.com/20871097

http://www.vimeo.com/20871223

CGTalk Moderation
03-16-2011, 10:59 AM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.