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 03-22-2007, 08:05 PM   #1
EquiNOX
A3.06.02M
portfolio
-------------------
Freelancer
Round Rock, USA
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 309
Particles Slow render?

I am doing photorealism render on pyroclastic cloud using particles system (Spray to be specific), What's best way to apply a material that actually look like a pyroclastic cloud? anyone? Hope its not stupid to ask
__________________

 
Old 03-22-2007, 09:33 PM   #2
TimWoods
....vray**
 
TimWoods's Avatar
portfolio
Tim Woods
Freelance Generalist/TD
London, United Kingdom
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 809
afterburn or pyrocluster. they can simulate volumetic areas. great for pyroclastics. if you want to go even further then look at fume.
__________________
3D Generalist

 
Old 03-22-2007, 11:41 PM   #3
EquiNOX
A3.06.02M
portfolio
-------------------
Freelancer
Round Rock, USA
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 309
I've been looking at FumeFX but wasn't sure if it would generate pyroclastic-like cloud. Would they? is it even better than afterburn? Would they work with VRay render?

P.S. I always thought pyroclusters works with C4D only?
__________________

 
Old 03-23-2007, 12:10 AM   #4
SoLiTuDe
Lord of the Thundercats
 
SoLiTuDe's Avatar
portfolio
Ian Farnsworth
FX Artist
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,394
Pyrocluster was originally a max plugin -- still is. For actual flames and nice looking smoke fume is better, but for volcano style stuff afterburn or pyrocluster is probably the way to go. Fume CAN do it, but it'll prob require more tweaking... in fact you could use a combo... fume to get the motion, then attach a pflow to transfer the motion to particles, then afterburn to render the particles.
__________________
http://www.fx-td.com
 
Old 03-23-2007, 12:50 AM   #5
superhypersam
Fear the Ape
 
superhypersam's Avatar
sam Khorshid
VFX supervisor
Phenom Films
los angeles, USA
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 156
Send a message via AIM to superhypersam
afterburn is much easier for pyroclastic smoke.

Fume is great, but its realy hard to get that thick dense stuff, plus learning curve s a lil rough.


"fume to get the motion, then attach a pflow to transfer the motion to particles, then afterburn to render the particles."

using this method for a huge storm system, working quite well, but its a hell of a complex set up.


cheers
__________________
sam k
GiantApeStudios
 
Old 03-23-2007, 01:20 AM   #6
SoLiTuDe
Lord of the Thundercats
 
SoLiTuDe's Avatar
portfolio
Ian Farnsworth
FX Artist
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by superhypersam
using this method for a huge storm system, working quite well, but its a hell of a complex set up.


cheers



Of course it's complex... but talk about fun!
__________________
http://www.fx-td.com
 
Old 03-23-2007, 03:58 AM   #7
EquiNOX
A3.06.02M
portfolio
-------------------
Freelancer
Round Rock, USA
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 309
Afterburn is it... After purchasing this plugin tonite (Don't tell my wife) It got what I wanted. I went through tutorial, seem like it's very simple task.

Say, if I want to create a scene that display heavy-puffy pyroclastic cloud, aftermath of volcano eruption... I doubt I wouldn't need multiple-particles at once, but afterburn can do based on size wouldn't they?

As of now I am still on learning curve, I suppose there are some free tutorial explaining something cool like Allen McKay's style or similar to his... wouldn't there be any? if so would you have links? Because I couldn't find any in google.

Thanks for your suggestion, without it....I'd still suffer on slow render speed.
__________________

 
Old 03-25-2007, 04:14 PM   #8
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
when i use fumefx movement to drive particles i get odd results quite often :(

dunno which spinner caused the trouble but one does...like 20% of my particles don´t follow the fume movement at all.

and yes. the fume learning curve is not that easy going as it is with flow eg...

kind regards

anselm
 
Old 03-25-2007, 04:14 PM   #9
CGTalk Moderation
Lord of the posts
CGTalk Forum Leader
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,066,481
Thread automatically closed

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.
__________________
CGTalk Policy/Legalities
Note that as CGTalk Members, you agree to the terms and conditions of using this website.
 
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 09:05 AM.


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