CGTalk > Software Specific Forums > Autodesk 3ds max > Particle Flow
To minimize the ads you see on this page create a CGTalk account and log in HERE
Thread Closed share thread « Previous Thread | Next Thread »
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 07-02-2007, 10:30 AM   #1
atd
Frequenter
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 129
Thinking Particles vs Particular Flow

Hi

I have been researching about max particles and I found Thinking Particles, Are this similar in concept and funtionality to Particular Flow. What are the strong point in each one. And there weakness ??


thank you in advance


Atd3d
 
Old 07-02-2007, 01:05 PM   #2
Massemannen
Know-it-All
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 324
What is Particular Flow? Or do you mean Particle Flow?
 
Old 07-02-2007, 02:26 PM   #3
atd
Frequenter
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 129
Sorry is "Particle Flow" of course, NOW Help meee !?
 
Old 07-02-2007, 02:27 PM   #4
Bobo
Krakatoa Guy
 
Bobo's Avatar
Borislav Petrov
Product Specialist
Thinkbox Software
Vancouver, Canada
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 5,317
Quote:
Originally Posted by atd
Hi

I have been researching about max particles and I found Thinking Particles, Are this similar in concept and funtionality to Particular Flow. What are the strong point in each one. And there weakness ??


They are just a bit similar.
Thinking Particles is RULE-BASED system.
Particle Flow is EVENT-BASED system.

TP Pros:
*Very Powerful (creating complex systems is easier than in PFlow)
*Great Dynamics
*Supports Fracturing
*Good caching system
*Very good Material-based control over particle properties (Matterwaves built-in)
*Being rule-based it is a lot more flexible to react to things happening in the scene.
*New version 3.0 coming soon, I hear it will be amazing

TP Cons:
*With Great Power comes great... complexity. Creating simple things in TP is harder than in PF. A PhD degree is a bonus

PF Pros:
*Very simple to use, probably the best balanced power vs. ease of use of any particle system available.
*Very good scripting support (whetever cannot be done with the built in tools can usually be scripted, but would run much slower)
*Additional packs available from Orbaz, PF + Box 3 makes it very similar in flexibility to TP

PF Cons:
*4 years later still no interparticle dynamics (coming soon in Box 2 though, I hope)
*No fracturing either (Box 2?)
*Rather slow calculating complex flows, caching not very good.
*Additional power has to be purchased from 3rd party at extra cost and Autodesk has not touched the built-in system at all since Max 6.
__________________
Bobo
 
Old 07-02-2007, 11:48 PM   #5
atd
Frequenter
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 129
! ! ! WOW ! ! ! Bobo in person answer a little question from a little cuban 3Ds MAX guy ! ! ! this forum is amazine.

Ok I now understarn almost everythink about the two softwares, alone there are four things that I have left pending:

1- one is that Bobo said that thinking particles is Ruled Based?, please what is that?

2- PF interparticle dynamics ?

3- PF No fracturing either ?

4- I suppose but neither I do have left clear, is particle flow with box 1 and 2 similar of powerful that thinking particles??

thanks again Bobo I'm fan of your talent! on scripting too

Atd3d
 
Old 07-03-2007, 05:25 AM   #6
Bobo
Krakatoa Guy
 
Bobo's Avatar
Borislav Petrov
Product Specialist
Thinkbox Software
Vancouver, Canada
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 5,317
Quote:
Originally Posted by atd
! ! ! WOW ! ! ! Bobo in person answer a little question from a little cuban 3Ds MAX guy ! ! ! this forum is amazine.

Ok I now understarn almost everythink about the two softwares, alone there are four things that I have left pending:

1- one is that Bobo said that thinking particles is Ruled Based?, please what is that?

2- PF interparticle dynamics ?

3- PF No fracturing either ?

4- I suppose but neither I do have left clear, is particle flow with box 1 and 2 similar of powerful that thinking particles??

thanks again Bobo I'm fan of your talent! on scripting too

Atd3d


1 - Read this, it explains the difference between Event-Driven and Rule-Based.
http://www.cebas.com/products/produ...8-33-788&PID=15

2 and 3 - yep, PFlow particles cannot collide with each-other at mesh level, nor can you turn a solid object into a bunch of chunks without some heavy scripting.

4 - PFlow with Boxes 2 and 3 would be potentially very similar to TP, but Box 2 has not been released yet and I have no internal knowledge of what will be in it, although it is expected to provide dynamics and fragmentation and they are the only things missing.
Box 3 provides similar to TP per-particle mathematical operations using Data Operators you can wire together instead of programming in a language.
__________________
Bobo
 
Old 07-03-2007, 06:37 AM   #7
atd
Frequenter
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 129
Bobo Thanks to you NOW I understand !

Thanks

Atd3d
 
Old 07-06-2007, 05:10 PM   #8
BrandonD
Infidel
 
BrandonD's Avatar
Brandon Davis
Voxel Bee-otch
Dogtown, USA
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,047
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobo
*Very simple to use, probably the best balanced power vs. ease of use of any particle system available.



I want everyone to remember this statement whenever they bitch about PFlow not being perfect. From day one it was designed to be general particle system for MAX, to replace Spray, Snow, Super Spray, etc. The plan was to make something that had a balance of power vs ease of use so that it could support the largest portion of users in MAX's broad user base. It was made as simple as can be without reducing it to the level of simplicity of the previous generation of particle tools. It was also made to be extensible so that power users could mold it into a niche tool. It is not a specialized system but a general one, and that's why Thinking Particles still has a place at the table. TP wasn't designed along the same lines, allowing for capability to over rule ease of use, as what you would expect from a specialized system.
__________________
-Brandon Davis
 
Old 07-06-2007, 10:35 PM   #9
PsychoSilence
3Delicious
 
PsychoSilence's Avatar
portfolio
Anselm von Seherr - Thoß
VFX Technical Director
Incendii VFX
New Orleans, USA
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,480
Send a message via ICQ to PsychoSilence
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrandonD
I want everyone to remember this statement whenever they bitch about PFlow not being perfect. From day one it was designed to be general particle system for MAX, to replace Spray, Snow, Super Spray, etc. The plan was to make something that had a balance of power vs ease of use so that it could support the largest portion of users in MAX's broad user base. It was made as simple as can be without reducing it to the level of simplicity of the previous generation of particle tools. It was also made to be extensible so that power users could mold it into a niche tool. It is not a specialized system but a general one, and that's why Thinking Particles still has a place at the table. TP wasn't designed along the same lines, allowing for capability to over rule ease of use, as what you would expect from a specialized system.


Perfect framed picture of PFlow!
 
Old 07-06-2007, 11:10 PM   #10
atd
Frequenter
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 129
Hi I have been watching some allan mckay and Brandon videos and is awesome what can we do with PF. Thinking Particles is too a powerfull particle engine.

So maybe this is Of but I need ask, In your professional opinion is 3DS MAX Particles engine (TP, FumeFX, Afterburn included) as powerfull as Maya Particles. ????

Maybe this is a theme for another Thread but if someone may answer me ?

Thanks for everybody timesss
Atd3d

PD: I love MAX !
 
Old 07-07-2007, 01:39 PM   #11
joconnell
Idiot
John O'Connell
tea maker / drinker
Dublin, Ireland
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 1,037
Mayas particles can in theory do everything but a lot of the stuff is accessed usng mel scripting. Apparently Rif Dagher from cgfluids demo'd thinking particles to the guy who original wrote maya's particles and he was quite wowed - he didn't expect it to be that powerful.

As for tp vs pflow, for me pflow is far faster to get simple effects with - it's very agile and you can knock out a tonne of stuff very quickly. When you start getting up to millions of particles or using a lot of geometry instancing it starts getting quite unstable though - I reckon if autodesk had let oleg keep updating it we might have less problems but anyway. Pflows caching system is great in theory with the down stream operators but doesn't work as well in practise.

Tp is a far heavier system, it's potentially a lot more flexible but this adds in a lot more complexity that will slow you down on simpler effects. It's way more powerful out of the box and its playback / caching engine is way more reliable than pflow in my experience. It's fracturing and dynamics operators are fantastic - they were the main reason I bought it originally but there's hundreds of other great things in it.

To compare the two, as bobo said it'd more like pflow and box #3 vs tp. For heavier stuff or where I need dynamics or fracturing I'd use tp. fr simpler effects I'd use pflow and get a quicker result than tp.

Please note that while I do a huge amount of particle work, I'm not a full time particle td like allan, brandon or rif - I don't get the time they would to get really deeply in to these systems (for example - rif would have a lot of tp presets to make things far quicker than I could and bobo and brandon could use box #3 to get tp style results).

Ideally I'd get both and apparently max particles are as good and possibly better than mayas, especially with stuff like fume to add in a fluid solver and krakatoa for massive point rendering.
 
Old 07-07-2007, 04:48 PM   #12
BrandonD
Infidel
 
BrandonD's Avatar
Brandon Davis
Voxel Bee-otch
Dogtown, USA
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,047
On the subject of Maya particles and how they compare to the rest of the tools out there, they are in my opinion highly dated and not a whole lot evolved since Dynamation in the mid-90s. Capable? Yes, but as mentioned they are exceptionally reliant on MEL scripting. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, especially when you need to do something very complex, but it makes doing simple things painful when your alternatives are more modern interfaces that intuitively let you build particle systems.

Houdini's particle tools are hard to beat, not because it has features others don't have, but because the way Houdini works in general is VERY benefitial to particle systems both simple and complex.
__________________
-Brandon Davis
 
Old 07-08-2007, 07:22 PM   #13
Steve Green
Reworking my Reel
Steve Green
Freelance 3D Artist
United Kingdom
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,925

I'm not a hardcore particle user either, so PFlow suits my needs, although I do wish it could be a bit nippier. (I remember a good example being emitting particles from a deforming surface, like whitecaps. It just seemed to be a lot quicker using PArray than PFlow for that)

On that side of things, I'm not sure how much can be done (without resorting to cacheing) by Oleg to speed things up, or if the ball is solely in Autodesk's court on that one.


- Steve
 
Old 07-08-2007, 08:00 PM   #14
JohnnyRandom
Configurator
 
JohnnyRandom's Avatar
portfolio
John Rand
still wandering the binary void
salt lake city, USA
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,998
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Green
On that side of things, I'm not sure how much can be done (without resorting to cacheing) by Oleg to speed things up, or if the ball is solely in Autodesk's court on that one.


- Steve


Multi-threaded calcs would be great, if possible! I'd pay for a Box that did that no problem, would be great if AME would do something in that department, think its time for them to rollback through the particle department with the updates. We've seen a bunch of stuff for animation, character enhancements, archviz, some modelling, hair, ect. but little in the way of particles since what max6?
__________________
poof ~>Vimeo<~
 
Old 07-08-2007, 09:05 PM   #15
Steve Green
Reworking my Reel
Steve Green
Freelance 3D Artist
United Kingdom
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,925

Yep,

it was an extension for Max 5, but I don't remember anything new since it was rolled into 6.

No idea if it's easily multithreaded, if any of it already is, or can use GPUs or Aegia to speed things up (apart from just collision).

- Steve
 
Thread Closed share thread


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 02:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.