Effex 2.0 release (also a PLE Version)

Become a member of the CGSociety

Connect, Share, and Learn with our Large Growing CG Art Community. It's Free!

THREAD CLOSED
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  07 July 2013
Effex 2.0 release (also a PLE Version)

Whats going on these days
Everybody is releasing / announcing new updates. Great !

I am glad to see a PLE Version for the new Effex 2.0 Fluid / Gas simulation tool. Wow :
http://www.dpit2.de/navie/index.php check it out. It looks very promising. I need vacation

Last edited by DesignAmyte : 07 July 2013 at 01:48 AM.
 
  07 July 2013
Great! Congrats on public release! Gone testing trial version =)
 
  07 July 2013
effex 2.0 trial crash C4D at startup
I even tried the version with KrakatoaSR

I'm using R14 on OSX 10.7.5
 
  07 July 2013
Samir, thanks!

I had error with krakatoa version(one function not found), i forgot to update 2.1.8.51092 to 2.2.0.51871(thanks to thinkbox team).

Most of Effex things(which i study) work at windows platform.

Last edited by ilay : 07 July 2013 at 01:51 PM.
 
  07 July 2013
Originally Posted by egon569: effex 2.0 trial crash C4D at startup
I even tried the version with KrakatoaSR

I'm using R14 on OSX 10.7.5


Hmm, we cannot confirm such a crash. But if you send me the bug report C4D creates, we may be able to figure out what is causing the crash for you. I would be highly interested to see it, try to reproduce it and provide a fix if possible.

Did you make sure it is Effex that crashed? Did the message say so? Coudl you try to remove all other plugins temporarily and see if it then still crashes (that makes sure it's Effex...or rules it out).

Thanks!
__________________
FX & Design
www.naviť.com | YouTube | Facebook
 
  07 July 2013
Originally Posted by ilay: Samir, thanks!

I had error with krakatoa version(one function not found), i forgot to update 2.1.8.51092 to 2.2.0.51871(thanks to thinkbox team).

Most of Effex things(which i study) work at windows platform.


Yeah, thinkbox changed a function name in their API, so the latest KrakatoaSR version is required!

Anyway, OSX and Win should work just the same.
__________________
FX & Design
www.naviť.com | YouTube | Facebook
 
  07 July 2013
I gave the demo a spin last night and thought everything was going well, until I watched your tutorials and saw that the computational speed of liquid simulations at your end was calculating about 5-10x faster compared to my machine.

The default CPU threads are set to 0. Implying all cpu's as you mentioned in the tutorial.
However this is very slow to compute at my end. In fact CPU threads set to just 1 provides a dramatic speed up over using all of my 16 cores (32threads). As I increase the threads, the slower it becomes. When I monitor C4D's cpu usage, it reads as it should. 0 is using around 80% of my processor capability. 1 is running around 5%.

I'm running a 3.1ghz dual 8 core system.
Running on the latest version of R14.
Freshly reformatted just last night, hoping to remedy this issue.
Double checked installation instructions. Tried both standard Demo and Demo with krakatoa.

Any ideas what could have gone wrong? I'd very much like to familiarize myself with this workflow before a project comes up in September.
__________________
۩PRIST

 
  07 July 2013
Originally Posted by ThePriest: I gave the demo a spin last night and thought everything was going well, until I watched your tutorials and saw that the computational speed of liquid simulations at your end was calculating about 5-10x faster compared to my machine.


You're definitely on to something. I have the registered version and an i7 with 6 physical cores (12 with HT). I ran the basic liquid scene in the viewport up to frame 50 and got the following times with various thread settings:

0 - 31s
1 - 57
2 - 34
3 - 26
4 - 23
5 - 23
6 - 24
7 - 25
8 - 26
9 - 27

Can see how that's going ... up to 31s for all cores. So in my case the sweet spot is four/five cores, which is about 35% faster than using all cores.

Tried it with the variable density liquid preset and it was even more pronounced. Four cores about 80% faster than all cores.

Just tested again using the smoke presets, where changing the cpu core setting breaks everything. Doesn't render at all, even after setting the cores back to 0.

Last edited by AdamT : 07 July 2013 at 09:14 PM.
 
  07 July 2013
Thanks for confirming.
I've just performed a similar test with 90 frames and a simple liquid setup..
In my case, the difference is very dramatic.

0 (All) = 58 second
1 (single thread) = 17 seconds
2 (a whole core?) = 22 seconds
16 = 49 seconds
32 = 58 seconds
__________________
۩PRIST


Last edited by ThePriest : 07 July 2013 at 09:50 PM.
 
  07 July 2013
Hi,

the answer is simple in this case.

Re/starting x threads (in your case 16 or even 32) probably takes longer than calculating the individual task. Meaning that at low resolutions (low cell counts as in the default scenes) you do not benefit from so many threads, but a lower thread count is more advantageous here. That's exactly why this setting is there, so you can tweak performance sometimes instead of Effex naively running all threads.

So intuitively you actually did the exact right thing.

You will benefit from more cpu threads the more each cpu has to do, so higher resolution will benefit from more cores much more!

Probably I can tweak some more performance out of the threading in the future but this really requires some alone time as it's not just a sideline.
__________________
FX & Design
www.naviť.com | YouTube | Facebook

Last edited by Katachi : 07 July 2013 at 12:42 AM.
 
  07 July 2013
Originally Posted by AdamT: Just tested again using the smoke presets, where changing the cpu core setting breaks everything. Doesn't render at all, even after setting the cores back to 0.


Hmm, I cannot confirm any issues here that reflect that but there is something off with some parts of the R14 version on osx we noticed. A new version will be available soon taking care of some issues though.

I would be very interested in knowing if you still see this issue then. I think on monday.

thanks
__________________
FX & Design
www.naviť.com | YouTube | Facebook
 
  07 July 2013
Originally Posted by Katachi: Hmm, I cannot confirm any issues here that reflect that but there is something off with some parts of the R14 version on osx we noticed. A new version will be available soon taking care of some issues though.

I would be very interested in knowing if you still see this issue then. I think on monday.

thanks


I'll recheck it, but I'm on Windows.
 
  07 July 2013
I'm sure I've read someplace that Multi-threaded particle sims often don't scale up quite as well as you would think.

What I don't understand however, is why when I copied what you were doing (in the tutorial), action for action. How come my simulation performed dramatically slower than yours when I set it to run? Your fluids were gushing out in almost real time, where as mine were really dragging their feet. Had you perhaps optimized the thread count yourself to something other than 0?

I honestly have a feeling that something else is wrong. Can but try on another machine to confirm.
__________________
۩PRIST

 
  07 July 2013
Adam: Thanks!

Originally Posted by ThePriest: I'm sure I've read someplace that Multi-threaded particle sims often don't scale up quite as well as you would think.

What I don't understand however, is why when I copied what you were doing (in the tutorial), action for action. How come my simulation performed dramatically slower than yours when I set it to run? Your fluids were gushing out in almost real time, where as mine were really dragging their feet. Had you perhaps optimized the thread count yourself to something other than 0?

I honestly have a feeling that something else is wrong. Can but try on another machine to confirm.


I have quite an old i7 model with only 4 cores. So it adapts better (not as many threads) and my CPU does not run through the tasks as hell. I highly assume your CPUs are way newer than mine. So if you adapt the thread count you should get the same performance as I do (if not faster).

Let me know if that works for you. Thx!
__________________
FX & Design
www.naviť.com | YouTube | Facebook

Last edited by Katachi : 07 July 2013 at 11:27 AM.
 
  07 July 2013
I'm tryin the PLE as we speak but I must say I'm a bit worried at the moment.

While I like the concept of modularity, just like X-particles or Mograph, so far I feel the process has been pushed a bit over the top.

Control is good, but so far I'm curious to know why to create a simple emitter you need up to five or six objects linked together : Particles Grid Emitter + Particle Emisison Settings + Duration + Rate + alignment + particle groups...

Why not have one object with 5 tabs for such common settings with basic settings already dialed in?

I'm eagerly waiting for more documentation and tutorials, because as of now I find it a bit puzzling to say the least.
 
Thread Closed share thread



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 07:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.